Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Criminal Justice System: People with Neurodivergent Conditions

Kerry McCarthy: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the treatment of people with neurodivergent conditions in the criminal justice system.

Mike Freer: The Lord Chancellor is settling into his new role and has not yet had a chance to speak to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that, at director level, cross-departmental working groups have been working hard. As she will know from the Ministry of Justice action plan, which was updated in January this year, significant progress has been made on neurodiversity.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his response, and for telephoning me yesterday. As I said during that conversation, it is estimated that one in four prisoners have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and screening prisoners for that condition at an early stage—within a week of their entering prison, say—would not only help to prevent prison suicides, but aid rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. Will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues, particularly those on the Back Benches who have been working on this, about the need for such cases to be identified as early as possible?

Mike Freer: I can reassure the hon. Lady: I understand that prisoners are indeed screened in their first week, as are those on probation. However, there is more work to be done, and I am more than happy to arrange meetings with the hon. Lady and with any other colleague who wishes to pursue in more depth the work that we are doing in respect of both prisons and probation.

Robert Buckland: May I commend the work that the Government are doing in pursuance of the call for evidence on neurodiversity that I initiated when I was in office? I note that 80 neurodiversity support managers have been appointed, but what more can be done to ensure that all our prisons have neurodiversity officers who can train other staff as well as screening prisoners who come into the system for a range of neurodiverse conditions?

Mike Freer: I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in this regard. I know that he took it very seriously and was passionate about this issue. In fact, we now have 100 neurodiversity support managers rather than 80: we have made significant progress, but there are still have 22 vacancies. We have more work to do on the screening, and we have more work to do to ensure that the data collection is both consistent and robust.

Trans and Non-binary Children

John Nicolson: What guidance her Department plans to provide to schools on supporting trans and non-binary children.

Ben Bradshaw: Whether it is her policy that schools should tell parents if their children are trans or non-binary.

Nick Gibb: Our schools, colleges and teachers are committed to helping all pupils and students to thrive and achieve their potential in a safe and respectful environment. Gender can be a complex and sensitive matter for schools, which is why we are working with the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), to develop guidance for schools in relation to gender-questioning pupils. We will be finalising the draft guidance shortly, and will hold a full public consultation on it.

John Nicolson: The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) appears to think that “drag story time” in Elgin is one of the most pressing issues facing the country today. What signal does the Minister think that sends to vulnerable and bullied trans and other LGBT children?

Nick Gibb: We know that this is, as I said, a complex and sensitive matter. Many schools already deal with issues relating to gender-questioning children as well as the other issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but some schools feel a need for more support to enable them to help pupils and their parents and deal with concerns that are raised, which is why we are producing the draft guidance for schools. That guidance, which we will publish soon, will be followed by a public consultation.

Ben Bradshaw: In April The Sunday Times reported that the Government intended to instruct schools to tell parents if students were questioning their gender identity. Given that a third of LGBT young people would not feel confident about coming out to their parents, given that a quarter of homeless young people are LGBT young people who have been chucked out of their homes by their families, and given the statement by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that no one should ever disclose someone’s gender identity or sexuality against their will, other than in exceptional circumstances involving safeguarding, does the Minister agree that to instruct schools to “out” pupils to their families would be totally outrageous?

Nick Gibb: There is a difference between advice being given to a child by a particular teacher and decisions about children in which parental involvement is paramount,  and it is crucial for schools to ensure that parents are involved in such decisions. As I have said, we will publish draft guidance shortly and there will be a full public consultation on our proposed approach.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: We need to trust parents, and we should tell children to trust parents. We are right not to confuse sexual orientation with gender confusion and other things. Schools really do need to say to children and to parents, “You can trust us as a school to let you know if your child is in distress.”

Nick Gibb: I agree with my hon. Friend. Parental involvement is important in all these matters, and they are sensitive matters, but there is a difference between what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) spoke about, where a child who is confused about their sexual orientation or other personal problems has a confidential discussion with teacher, and big decisions about gender transitioning, for example, where parental involvement is important. Any decision about such matters needs to be taken with parental involvement.

Miriam Cates: Last year, a YouGov poll found that around 80% of schools now have pupils who are trans identified, and Policy Exchange recently reported that four in 10 schools are operating policies of gender self-identification. Dr Hilary Cass has said that social transition is “not a neutral act” but a psychological intervention with unknown consequences for children’s welfare. Does the Minister agree that the new guidance for schools must make it clear that teachers are not qualified to make this psychological intervention and that the only safe approach is to protect children according to their biological sex?

Nick Gibb: As my hon. Friend will know, we are now producing guidance for schools on this sensitive matter. Draft guidance will be available shortly and we will consult on it. In order to provide the clearest possible guidance, we intend to consider pieces of work such as Dr Hilary Cass’s independent review of gender identity services to children and young people, which is ongoing.

Angela Eagle: There is already very good guidance, written by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I hope that the Minister will take account of that as he develops the Government’s guidance. Does he agree that this situation has now been highly politicised by particular people, to the detriment of those children and teachers who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances? Will he explain why on earth it has taken the Government this long to publish the guidance, essentially leaving teachers without Government guidance in this very contested area? When will he support the work that teachers do?

Nick Gibb: In drafting the guidance, we have taken into account advice from experts such as the NSPCC and Dr Hilary Cass, as I have just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), but we have to get this guidance right. This is a sensitive matter. The drafting is happening right now and the guidance will be published shortly in draft. There will then be a full public consultation to ensure that all views are taken into account.

Anna Firth: Recent research by Policy Exchange suggests that more than 60% of schools do not reliably inform parents when their children express a wish to change gender. Many parents are concerned about schools keeping them in the dark about such important changes concerning their children, so can the Minister please confirm that parents must be kept informed of such an important change in behaviour in their child?

Nick Gibb: As I have said, parental involvement is paramount in any decisions about children, and it is important that schools work to ensure that parents are consulted before any decisions are made regarding a child socially transitioning. These are issues that we are thinking about and discussing with experts as we draft the guidance, which will be published shortly and will then be available for public consultation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Anneliese Dodds: Schools, parents and pupils who need guidance on these issues are sick and tired of reading conflicting rumours about the Government’s plans in the newspapers. Will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay is that the Minister for Women and Equalities does not agree with the Education Secretary, who does not agree with the Minister for Children, who does not agree with the Prime Minister?

Nick Gibb: No, we are working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities. We are consulting experts on drafting comprehensive guidance on a very sensitive matter, and we need to get it right. Many schools are dealing with these issues very successfully, day in and day out, but some schools want advice. They want good-quality advice, and the guidance on that is being drafted right now. It will be published shortly and made available for public consultation.

Anneliese Dodds: We have had noises off and rumours about this in the newspapers for over a year, and still no delivery. The sad truth is that schools are being left in limbo by a Government who are, yet again, focused on internal battles. Their LGBT action plan has collapsed, they are at war on banning conversion therapy and they are now squabbling over schools guidance too. Will the Minister apologise to the LGBT+ people who have been failed by this playground politics?

Nick Gibb: There is a range of views, as we have seen in the newspapers, but the Government are united in our determination to have very high-quality guidance for schools. This guidance has been drafted and it is in a very good state. It is ready for publication, and it will be published shortly. There will then be a full public consultation to make sure that all the views expressed in the newspapers, by the hon. Lady and by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, can be taken into account as we finalise this important guidance for schools.

Covid-19 Government Communications:  People with Disabilities

Liz Twist: If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of Government communications during the covid-19 pandemic for people with disabilities.

Alex Burghart: Throughout the pandemic, the Government took their responsibilities to people with disabilities extremely seriously. We all remember the daily press conferences, which almost always had signers present, but that was just one element of a much broader communications strategy that ensured guidance and information were provided in easy-read, large text, audio and many other formats.

Liz Twist: Many people with disabilities would disagree with the Minister’s assessment of the communications and feel that, throughout the pandemic, the Government often failed to provide specific communications to disabled people about their rights and access to support. What steps is he taking to ensure that public health announcements, public health information and daily briefings are accessible to and are reaching people with disabilities, particularly those with a learning disability?

Alex Burghart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. On covid, I understand that this is something the inquiry will be considering. On her broader point, she will know that the NHS and publicly funded social care in this country have a duty, under section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to ensure that patients and people in care receive information in formats appropriate for them. I know the NHS takes that responsibility extremely seriously.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Yasmin Qureshi: Research from Scope shows that, in the last four years, the cost of running a disabled household rose from £583 a month to £975 a month. The Conservative cost of living crisis has forced disabled people to choose between using life-saving equipment and food. After 13 years of this Government, there are now over 1 million disabled people living in poverty. What action has the Minister taken to support these people?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Lady will know the extraordinary lengths to which this Government have gone to support people through the cost of living crisis. Help has been extended to people of all means and abilities, including the people she is speaking about, and we will continue to do what is necessary to help them.

Major Conditions Strategy: Women

Nicola Richards: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the major conditions strategy improves health outcomes for women.

Tom Randall: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the major conditions strategy improves health outcomes for women.

Maria Caulfield: This Conservative Government are the first Government to produce a women’s health strategy, and in the first year we are already delivering on our eight key priorities, many of which are in the major conditions work, including dementia, which is the leading killer of women, and musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoporosis. This shows that this Government are prioritising the improvement of women’s health across the board.

Nicola Richards: It is essential that the major conditions strategy helps to improve the care offered by the NHS, especially to women suffering from breast cancer. I recently visited Chai Cancer Care with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) to see the blueprint it has developed for how best to support those affected by cancer. Will the Minister congratulate Chai Cancer Care on its dedication to patients and families? And will she ensure that the major conditions strategy goes as far as possible to offer better, more joined-up care to women across the country?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this space. She is a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, and she also has first-hand experience of the impact of breast cancer. I congratulate Chai Cancer Care and all the charities supporting women who are going through breast cancer. It is important that the major conditions strategy not only looks at improving clinical outcomes, which are important, but supports the care that women receive—women often undergo multiple treatments in different clinical settings. That is also a priority in the major conditions strategy.

Tom Randall: Last week, I had a long conversation with a constituent who is caring for her husband, who has had dementia for the past decade. We all know that many people like her, mainly women, are quietly caring for loved ones who are battling diseases outlined in the major conditions strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the experiences of these people need to be heard? Will she encourage them to take part in the call for evidence on the strategy before it closes at the end of this month?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is right on this and I encourage everyone to go to the gov.uk website, because the consultation closes at the end of the month. I mentioned that dementia is the leading cause of death in women, but many women are also caring for loved ones who are battling the disease, not just for days or weeks, but for months and years. As I said, this is about improving not just outcomes on dementia, but access and the support we provide to those who care for those with dementia. Listening to experts and experience is a key priority.

Christine Jardine: We all welcome the major conditions strategy, but will the Minister reassure us about something? Women experience so many conditions differently from men, particularly in relation to heart attacks, and there is a lack of awareness about these things. Will the strategy examine how awareness of these differences and of symptoms to look for can be improved?

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and one of our eight priorities in the first year is improving access to information. Later this summer, the NHS website will be launching a women’s information portal, which will be specifically about women’s health needs. So it will provide information on some of the key conditions that women suffer from, and it will be a go-to and reliable source for women on their health needs. She does well to raise this point.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for that response and for the £10 million that the Department has set aside for the breast screening programme on the UK mainland. In Northern Ireland, the number of those with breast cancer is rising, which is concerning. What steps will she take to ensure that the devolved nations are not left behind on outcomes for women?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that health is a devolved issue, but we are working closely with all four nations, because we want to ensure that we have joined-up working, particularly in the screening programme, where we have some catching up to do post covid.

Topical Questions

Chris Law: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Stuart Andrew: This is the first opportunity I have had to pay tribute to our former colleague, and one of my closest friends, Karen Lumley. It was a privilege for me to call her a friend for nearly 35 years. We all remember her amazing character, infectious laugh and ever-changing coloured hair, but she was also proud to represent Redditch, she was a passionate defender of its people, she campaigned hard for the local hospital and she had public service in her core. Knowing her as I did, I can say that she was an amazing friend. It was also a great privilege to know her family, and my thoughts are with Richard, Lizzie and Chris, who are touched by the messages they have received from those in all parts of the House. God bless you, Karen. Rest in peace. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
It is June, it is Pride Month and it is a time for us all to celebrate the LGBT community and all it has to offer. It is also an opportunity to reflect on many of the challenges that LGBT people face, and I look forward to seeing what more can be done on those. I also look forward to visiting many organisations that support that community.

Chris Law: Members on these Benches would like to share our sympathies as well.
It is simply not good enough for the UK Government to absolve themselves of responsibility for the abhorrent practice of forced adoption, which affected hundreds of thousands of families from the 1940s to the 1970s. Rather than apologise on behalf of society, will the Minister finally find a backbone, acknowledge that the state failed to protect those affected and commit to issuing a formal apology on behalf of the UK Government, as the Scottish and Welsh Governments have already done?

Stuart Andrew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment at the beginning there. He raises an important point. Obviously, that issue is not within my portfolio area, but I will certainly take it up with the Minister responsible and come back to him on it, if he will allow me to do so.

Luke Evans: Recently, residents of Hinckley and Bosworth raised with me their experiences as disabled travellers. I know the Government are concentrating on the inclusive transport  strategy, but can they update me on what that will look like tangibly when it comes to public transport—flights, buses and so on—for the likes of my constituents?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. Having inclusive transport is important. He is right that the inclusive transport strategy is integral to our ambition to make transport fully accessible by 2030. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are committed to delivering that strategy to make real practical differences from accessible platforms through to accessible buses. We will be able to update him shortly with more progress.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: The UK Government recently published statistics showing a 35% gender pension gap in private pensions, and recent research by the TUC suggests that more than one in 10 women are in jobs where their employers did not have to enter them into a workplace pension compared with fewer than one in 20 men. According to calculations from the Prospect union, the income gap between men and women in retirement is therefore now 40.5%, which is more than twice the level of the gender pay gap. What action is the Department taking with Cabinet colleagues to close that shameful gap?

Mims Davies: I do understand the hon. Lady’s point. We remain committed to our ambition to remove the lower earnings limit, as we set out in 2017. That will proportionately benefit the lowest earners the most, including women working part-time.

Andrew Jones: Last year, women established more than 150,000 new companies in the UK, which is twice as many as four years ago and the highest ever, yet the number of women founding businesses remains well below that of men. What steps are being taken to further support female entrepreneurs?

Maria Caulfield: We are committed to supporting female entrepreneurs, particularly in the high-growth sector. That is why we have launched the women-led high-growth enterprise taskforce, which has found that venture capital is a serious barrier. Currently, for every £1 of venture capital, 89p goes to companies led by men and only a penny to women. That is why getting access to venture capital and funding opportunities is a priority for female entrepreneurs.

Marion Fellows: According to research from the Resolution Foundation, the disability income gap is still at 44%, leaving disabled people hugely exposed to the rising cost of essentials in the context of the cost of living crisis. What steps is the Department taking with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that work coaches and disability advisers understand the barriers to employment faced by disabled people? Will the Department urge DWP colleagues to consider what additional specialist support could be offered to disabled jobseekers?

Mims Davies: Our disability employment adviser is there to understand exactly those needs and support. I point people to the benefits calculator on gov.uk, and   say that there will be further cost of living payment support. The House will be keen to know that the Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work will be joining the conference of states parties to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and focusing on how we can get more people into work and progressing and thriving.

Bob Blackman: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to amend the Equality Act 2010, which would give us the opportunity to remove caste as a protected characteristic?

Stuart Andrew: At the moment, the Government have no plans to amend that Act. Obviously, we keep everything under further consideration.

Deidre Brock: The Chancellor’s spring Budget announced measures to get the over-50s to return or stay in work, but did not announce any support for those experiencing menopause. The UK Government have rejected most of the recommendations in the report on menopause by the Women and Equalities Committee, whose Chair has said that it is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of women from leaving the workforce. Why have the UK Government not followed the Committee’s recommendations?

Mims Davies: We have appointed a Government champion on menopause matters, Helen Tomlinson, who is doing sterling work. Our 50PLUS coaches in jobcentres are supporting women to progress, and I urge all employers to focus on supporting women, adjusting the workplace and listening to their needs so that 50-plus can be the most important, progressive and positive time of women’s working lives.

Selaine Saxby: Some 78% of top UK energy companies have no women in executive director positions, and 28% have no women on the board. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to do far more to help women into science, technology, engineering and maths jobs?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is correct. We have made great progress in getting young girls to take STEM subjects—the numbers are up 31%—but the challenge is to get them into work. The FTSE women leaders review has set a target of 40% of FTSE 350 companies having women on their board. The STEM Returners programme is key to getting experienced women back into the workplace and on to those boards.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I make an announcement? I want to tell the House about the success last night of the House of Commons teams in the tug-of-war. We beat the House of Lords 4-0.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Johnston: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 June.

Oliver Dowden: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Washington at the invitation of President Biden. They will be discussing co-operation on a range of issues, including artificial intelligence and global trade, and of course continuing our leadership in galvanising international support for the people of Ukraine. This week is Carers Week, and I know colleagues across the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the huge contribution that unpaid carers make to our society. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

David Johnston: At the election, the Labour party committed to abolishing standard assessment tests, academy schools and Ofsted—three policies given to it by an education union that also opposed this Government’s use of phonics. Yet, thanks to this Government’s focus on phonics, English primary school children have just been ranked the best readers in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of how, on the Conservative side, we have policy to meet the needs of children, rather than the demands of trade unionists?

Oliver Dowden: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I absolutely agree with him. Driving up literacy rates is central to our plan to grow the economy, so I am delighted at those latest figures showing that children in England are the best readers in the western world. Why is that? Because, since 2010, we have raised the number of schools rated good or outstanding by nearly 30%. The verdict is clear: only the Conservatives can be trusted with our children’s future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Angela Rayner: Speaking of the last election, the Tory manifesto promised to end the abuse of the judicial review. How is it going?

Oliver Dowden: I welcome the much shorter question from the right hon. Lady. Let me remind her of a few facts about the covid inquiry. We set it up, we have provided it with more than 55,000 documents so far, and we have given it all the financial resources it needs so that we can learn the lessons from the pandemic. However, in Wales they also had a pandemic, and what have the Labour-run Wales authorities done there? No independent inquiry in Wales. As ever, it is one rule for Labour and another for everyone else.

Angela Rayner: The Deputy Prime Minister pretends that it is complicated, but it is simple: the Government set up the inquiry to get to the truth, then blocked that inquiry from getting the information that it asked for, and now they are taking it to court. I know that he considers himself a man of the people, so using his vast knowledge of working-class Britain, does he think that working people will thank him for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of their money on loophole lawyers so that the Government can obstruct the covid inquiry?

Oliver Dowden: We will provide the inquiry with each and every document related to covid, including all internal discussions in any form, as requested,  while, crucially, protecting what is wholly and unambiguously irrelevant. Essentially, the right hon. Lady is calling for years’ worth of documents and messages between named individuals to be in scope. That could cover anything from civil servants’ medical conditions to intimate details about their families.
I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Lady should lecture us on value for money for the taxpayer, when I understand that she has now purchased two pairs of noise-cancelling headphones on expenses. I will be fair to her: if I had to attend shadow Cabinet meetings, I think I would want to tune them out, too.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Deputy Prime Minister was very good in saying that he welcomed short questions. I would also welcome shorter answers.

Angela Rayner: All we are asking for is what the covid inquiry has asked for. Across the world, covid inquiries are well under way, while this Government hide information and shell out public money on legal bills for the Uxbridge One—the former Prime Minister is now demanding another £1 million to pay for his new lawyers. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and his former boss have fallen out, and maybe he wants to patch things up, but can he seriously say that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Oliver Dowden: If we want to talk about relationships between different people, I do not think that we need to search the right hon. Lady’s WhatsApp messages to know that there is no communication between her and the leader of her party. I will happily stand up for our record on covid. When she and her party were carping from the sidelines, calling for longer lockdowns, I was working as Culture Secretary to keep our football clubs running, protect our theatres and museums, and deliver the largest cultural recovery package in the western world. That is the difference between her and me: while she was collecting titles, I was getting on with the job.

Angela Rayner: I know that for the last couple of years the Deputy Prime Minister has been trying to prep Prime Ministers for PMQs, but these punchlines are dire—he really needs to go back to school himself. Speaking of school, thousands of children are missing from school; absence has nearly doubled since before the pandemic. The Prime Minister says that he has maxed out on his support for school pupils, but why did the Government abandon their plans for a register of missing children?

Oliver Dowden: On the specifics of the right hon. Lady’s question, that is not the case: we continue to keep the policy under review. I am very proud of this Government’s record on funding and support for schools: £4 billion more this year, £4 billion next year, and the result of all that investment is that we have the highest standards of reading in the entire western world. What a contrast from when the Labour party was in power.[Official Report, 10 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 5MC.]

Angela Rayner: There we have it: thousands of children missing; policy “under review” still. Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister about something else that has gone missing. The Public Accounts Committee this  week revealed that Government fraud has increased fourfold, with Ministers overseeing the loss of £21 billion of taxpayers’ money in the last two years. Can he tell us how much of our money they expect to recover?

Oliver Dowden: We are working tirelessly to recover those funds, and we have made huge progress already. The Labour party talks about good use of taxpayers’ money, but what do we have from it? Plans for an unfunded, £28 billion spending spree. What would that do? Drive up borrowing and push up interest rates, adding £1,000 to everyone’s mortgage. I know that the Opposition are out of touch, but even the right hon. Lady must realise that Britain cannot afford Labour.

Angela Rayner: Britain cannot afford any more of the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost count: the answer is that only a quarter of the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud is expected to be clawed back. If the Government cannot get that public money back, they cannot be trusted with anything else. It has become a pattern of behaviour from the Conservatives—an inquiry missing evidence, schools missing pupils, taxpayers missing money and Ministers missing in action. All the while, working people pay the price for their mistakes. This week, the Public Accounts Committee also warned that this epic fraud and waste could happen all over again because Ministers are living in denial of the facts. If the Government cannot admit the truth, how on earth can they learn the lessons?

Oliver Dowden: We are actually putting more resources in throughout this year to tackle fraud and error, and we continue to make real progress with it. This is quite extraordinary from the Labour party: while we work to drive down inflation and energy bills, the right hon. Lady is receiving £10,000 from Just Stop Oil backers, adopting their policies, backing protesters, blocking new production and forcing us to import more foreign oil and gas. For once, I find myself in agreement with the GMB union, which said that that is “naive”, has a “lack of intellectual rigour” and could decimate communities. Just like Labour.

Rob Butler: The latest route update for East West Rail has recently been published and unfortunately the link to Aylesbury is still just a dotted line on the map. I have raised the need for this vital link on several occasions in the House, because it would cut congestion on our roads, stimulate the economy and reduce air pollution. Each time, I have been asked to work with stakeholders to reduce the cost, and I am pleased to say that we have managed to do that. A much cheaper proposal is now on the table, so can my right hon. Friend change that dotted line into a solid line and give my constituents the railway they want?

Oliver Dowden: I know that my hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for this project, and I can assure him that the Department for Transport is working with Network Rail and East West Rail to consider the feasibility of lower-cost railway links on the Aylesbury spur. I know that he will continue to make that case vigorously.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the deputy leader of the SNP.

Mhairi Black: When the Prime Minister took office, he said that he would put economic stability and confidence at the heart of the Government. Today, UK interest rates are among the highest in the G20, and mortgage rates are rising back to nearly where they were after the former Prime Minister crashed the economy. Is it not the case that the Government’s biggest achievement is that they are trashing the economy just a wee bit slower than their predecessor?

Oliver Dowden: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the news today, but the OECD has again upgraded our growth forecasts. A month ago, the whole nation came together to celebrate a wonderful moment of pomp, pageantry and pride in our nation. How did the hon. Lady describe it? She called it “a pantomime”. The real pantomime is the SNP in Scotland.

Mhairi Black: I do not know what question the Deputy Prime Minister was answering, but let me try another one. This Government plan to cut taxes for the richest and spend £6 billion imprisoning people fleeing war and persecution, and have lost £21 billion to Government fraud throughout this pandemic. Is the view from the Prime Minister’s luxury helicopter so skewed that during a cost of living crisis, he thinks that is what people’s priorities are?

Oliver Dowden: I am going to take no lectures on profligacy from the SNP. Actually, what is it that this Government have done? We have provided record increases to the personal allowance, meaning that a person working full time on the minimum wage has seen a £1,000 reduction in their tax.

Mark Menzies: Fylde has many vibrant small shops at the beating heart of the economy, but although St Annes town centre has fantastic potential, its layout, quite frankly, is becoming tired. Investment is needed to reinvigorate the town centre, better connecting it to the seafront and reinvigorating the town. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to continue this Government’s levelling-up mission to deliver for towns such as St Annes?

Oliver Dowden: That is precisely why we have created the levelling-up fund. There is £3.6 billion within that in the towns fund to be invested in high streets up and down the country. We will be outlining the third round of submissions to that fund, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will make a very vigorous case for funding for his constituency during that round.

Edward Davey: Yesterday, I met Karen. Karen is a carer for her husband Alan, who has Parkinson’s and Lewy body dementia. She told me how hard it is to get people with power just to listen to her. Like so many carers, Karen feels her caring work just is not valued; at times, she has wanted to give up, but knows she must carry on because of her husband. Remarkable carers such as Karen save the Government more than the entire NHS budget, so will the Government  finally recognise the value of Britain’s family carers and not just pay tribute to them, but give them the financial and practical support they deserve?

Oliver Dowden: Of course, I would like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Karen and to hard-working unpaid carers up and down the country. I know he speaks from personal experience about this issue as well. We have provided £2.3 billion of support for social care, with an additional £25 million committed to putting people at the heart of care in the “People at the Heart of Care” White Paper, and £327 million is also committed to the better care fund.

Alberto Costa: Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the proposals for the 440-acre Hinckley national rail freight interchange, and the impact that this proposed site will have on the environment and, for example, on infrastructure such as Narborough railway station. I know the Deputy Prime Minister cannot talk about an individual planning application—that decision is for central Government to make—but can he give an assurance to my South Leicestershire constituents and Blaby district councillors such as Ben Taylor, Maggie Wright, Terry Richardson, Mike Shirley and others that the voice of my constituents will be heard in that planning application?

Oliver Dowden: I know from the vigorous campaigning of my hon. Friend that his constituents’ voice has been, and will be, heard. As he knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. What I can say is that I have experience of this in my own constituency, and I know what a blight can be created by those rail freight projects, so I do have every sympathy for the case that my hon. Friend is making.

Ronnie Cowan: This week, we heard plans for two universal basic income pilots in England. Similar schemes have been planned for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the progress of the gig economy and the acceleration of artificial intelligence, it is clear that the working environment will need to be drastically overhauled. Will this Government waken up to the reality of the situation and instruct both the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to engage with those pilots, so that we can constructively assess their pros and cons and work to safeguard a less precarious future for the next generation?

Oliver Dowden: The Government and I have never been convinced by the case for a universal basic income. We are not alone in that; it is also the position of Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I think a much better solution is to create more jobs, which this Government have done, and to cut taxes on working people, which is what this Government have done. That is the route to prosperity for people up and down the country.

Kevin Foster: Revitalising Oldway, regenerating our town centres and helping Torbay’s high-tech sector to grow will deliver levelling up for Torbay. What expectations does the Deputy  Prime Minister have of the new levelling-up partnership in focusing Government effort and resources on doing that?

Oliver Dowden: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, levelling-up partnerships are committed to work hand in hand with 20 places across England in most need of that levelling up. They are backed by £400 million of investment, and I know that he will make the case most robustly for funding for his constituency.

Catherine West: After 13 years, the Government have repeatedly broken their promise to repair social care. Post-pandemic, I have been visiting sheltered housing schemes in Hornsey and Wood Green, and time after time, basic services, such as dentistry, podiatry and befriending, are all missing. Will the Government take urgent action and repair that mess, or will it be down to Labour again to pick up the pieces?

Oliver Dowden: For the NHS as a whole, the Government have provided record additional funding. Indeed, since we came to power in 2010, funding is up £70 billion. In addition, in respect of social care, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a further £2.3 billion of support to that vital sector.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate the Government on their determination to bring forward the roll-out of electronic patient records for everyone in England. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that gives us a brilliant opportunity to roll out the digital version of the red book that is so transformational for every family in giving their baby the best start in life?

Oliver Dowden: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I know what a tireless campaigner she has been on this issue, both in and out of government. I am happy to confirm that the so-called digital red book will be rolled out, and we expect it to be delivered over the course of the next two years.

Gavin Newlands: The Deputy Prime Minister likes to call himself Mr Normal—he went to a normal school, and he understands normal people. We know that normal people are struggling in this Tory cost of living crisis, including nurses, for example, who he said had unreasonable wage demands. This is the same person who, on top of this £154,000 salary, charged two businesses more than £13,000 for just 20 hours’ work. That is £670 an hour. Does Mr Normal really think he is worth 65 times a band 2 nurse?

Oliver Dowden: I am not quite sure what the question was aiming at, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have provided more than £3,000 of support to help people with the cost of living. Why have we been able to do that? It is thanks to the strength of our economy and the strength of our Union. What is happening in Scotland? The SNP Government are putting taxes up on ordinary, hard- working people.

Flick Drummond: We are all concerned about the 81,000 children who are not on the school register, but are under the term “home-educated”. No one—neither local authorities, nor schools—can honestly answer the question of how many children are not in school. Therefore, how can we know that every child is safe and suitably educated? These children are out of sight and out of mind. The Secretary of State for Education has said that this is one of her priorities, as has the Education Committee. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to expedite my ten-minute rule Bill to place a duty on local authorities to maintain a register of children who are not in school, so that we can ensure that every child is visible, safe, suitably educated and receiving the support to enable them to thrive?

Oliver Dowden: We want to ensure that all children are safe and have access to an excellent education. Of course, local authorities must seek to identify children missing in their area and ensure that they are safe. The Department for Education continues to undertake work to support swifter identification and greater support of children missing in education.

Nia Griffith: In spite of Government spin to the contrary, the backlog of undetermined initial asylum claims has risen even since December from 160,000 to 170,000-plus. Caseworker numbers are down, and returns are still down. So will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to meet me to hear my constituents’ concerns about the Home Secretary’s plans to commandeer yet another hotel, the Stradey Park in the village of Furnace, and explain what more he will do to speed up clearing the backlog so as to return people to safe countries, settle genuine refugees and avoid the need to use the Stradey Park hotel?

Oliver Dowden: This Government will take whatever action is necessary both to clear the backlog and to stop the boats. Actually, as the hon. Member may have heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, small boat arrivals to the UK are down 20% this year, our French deal has prevented 33,000 illegal crossings this year, Albanian arrivals are down 90%, we have removed 1,800 Albanians, we have increased the number of illegal working raids and the legacy asylum backlog is now down 20%.[Official Report, 10 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 6MC.]

Damien Moore: Semina Halliwell, a 12-year-old girl from my constituency, suffered an horrific ordeal, and she tragically then went on to take her own life. She was let down by the system. This week is the two-year anniversary of her death. Labour-controlled Sefton Council still has an inadequate rating from Ofsted for children’s social care. So will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss what further measures can be taken to better protect children in Southport and the wider council area?

Oliver Dowden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what I am sure Members on both sides of this House will agree is a heartbreaking case, and I know that all our thoughts will be with Semina’s family and her friends. All children of course have the right to be safe and protected. I understand that the Department for Education will shortly begin consulting  on strengthening statutory guidance to ensure that health agencies, police forces and councils work together more collaboratively and end decisions that prevent putting children’s needs at the heart of their work. Of course, I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and for Health Department Ministers to meet him also.

Hilary Benn: Huntington’s disease eventually robs sufferers of their ability to walk, talk, eat, care for themselves and make decisions. It changes the person they were, and it has a 50% chance of being inherited by their children. Will the Government back the Huntington’s disease community’s call for better access to mental health services, a care co-ordinator in every area and specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance so that everyone affected by this devastating condition can get the help they need?

Oliver Dowden: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the devastating impact of this terrible disease. We have significantly increased investment in mental health. I am, of course, happy to arrange for Department of Health Ministers to meet him to discuss this further.

Simon Baynes: Wales is the land of song, and there is no better example of this than Johns’ Boys Male Chorus from Rhos in Clwyd South, who have performed magnificently in the recent series of “Britain’s Got Talent”, moving Bruno Tonioli and the other judges to tears. Would the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating the choir, and also the many other community choirs in Clwyd South and across the UK who bring such pleasure to the singers and audiences alike?

Oliver Dowden: I would actually argue that choral music is possibly one of our greatest contributions to global culture. I really do join my hon. Friend in congratulating Johns’ Boys Male Chorus on their fantastic achievement in reaching the semi-final of “Britain’s Got Talent”, and I am sure that they will continue to entertain and engage communities for many years to come.

Paula Barker: The Government post of anti-corruption champion has been vacant for over a year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the vacancy increases or decreases the risk of corruption in Government?

Oliver Dowden: In my Department, the Cabinet Office, I am working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. We are taking extensive steps to ensure that we crack down on fraud and waste and that procurement is transparent. Of course, we will be filling that vacancy very shortly.

Gareth Bacon: The Government do not have any money of their own—every penny that they spend is taxpayers’ money, including money spent supporting the economy during the pandemic. In that light, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be disgraceful for a political party to accept huge donations from a company that was simultaneously claiming hundreds of thousands of pounds of public support during furlough?

Oliver Dowden: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The furlough scheme helped to protect about 14.6 million jobs during that terrible covid crisis. But what do we discover? Labour is taking £1.5 million from Just Stop Oil backers and adopting their policy to block new oil and gas. It is job-destroying recklessness, and unfortunately it is hard-working people who will be left paying the price.

Ashley Dalton: In West Lancashire, my constituents are concerned about their children’s education and specifically the ongoing long-term impact of covid-19 restrictions on their educational development. A Public Accounts Committee report out today finds that the Department for Education is failing to take fast and effective recovery action to close the attainment gap in schools, and the Department has admitted that it will take a decade—10 years—just to get the education attainment gap back to pre-pandemic levels. So when will the Government stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for failing a generation of lost learners?

Oliver Dowden: Actually, before covid struck, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers had narrowed in both primary and secondary schools under the Government. Since covid struck, we have provided almost £5 billion for education recovery. If the hon. Lady is that concerned about children’s education, she should be calling on the education unions to call off their damaging strikes.

Alexander Stafford: Maltby Town Council and Maltby Main FC, who play at the Maltby Miners recreation ground, are fighting to ensure that the ground is financially sustainable and can stay open, but the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which runs the ground and has a history of selling off unprofitable areas to developers, will not allow a full bar to be opened, which would provide much-needed capital and has the support of the council’s residents. Spaces like recreation grounds are important parts of our mining heritage. Can my right hon. Friend step in to help Maltby Main get the bar that it needs and to help secure the ground’s financial future so that it does not face the same grim fate as the Dinnington Miners Welfare recreation ground?

Oliver Dowden: I offer my strongest support to my hon. Friend’s campaign; he is absolutely right to raise it. I question the extent of my powers to intervene on a bar closure in his constituency, but I will certainly examine what we can do further.

Mohammad Yasin: The East West Rail announcement proposes a six-track route that will impact at least 66 properties in Bedford, including the demolition of 37 homes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me why residents’ concerns have been ignored? Will he give me a commitment today that, if the majority of residents are against the plan in the statutory consultation, his Government will not approve the proposal?

Oliver Dowden: Of course, we will engage with local communities, but I find it rather odd that the Labour party has been saying for the past few months that it wants to build more housing and more  infrastructure and, as soon as there is a proposal to do so, which will enormously enrich the area, it is being opposed.

Bob Neill: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the calling of an early election in Spain has caused some concern about delay to achieving a treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union in relation to Gibraltar. Will he confirm that it remains the policy of His Majesty’s Government to prioritise achieving such a treaty once the election’s outcome is known, and that the Government will do all that is necessary to secure that treaty for the benefit of Gibraltar and its Spanish neighbours, and give all the necessary support to Gibraltar and its British people for their future security and prosperity?

Oliver Dowden: I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom and His Majesty’s Government remain steadfast in their support for Gibraltar. We are   working side by side with the Government of Gibraltar and we remain committed to concluding that UK-EU treaty as soon as possible.

Fleur Anderson: Today, the OECD said that the UK is on course to have a higher rate of inflation than almost all other G20 countries. It is families in Putney and up and down the country who will be suffering because of that. Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally commit to introducing a proper windfall tax on the enormous profits of the oil and gas giants and take pressure off struggling households?

Oliver Dowden: We actually introduced a bigger windfall tax than the Labour party was proposing. Thanks to that 75% windfall tax, last winter, we paid half of people’s energy bills. The hon. Lady talked about the OECD. What she failed to mention is that the OECD today gave the highest upgrade of growth to the United Kingdom compared with any other country.

Bill Presented

Food Poverty Strategy Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for ending the need for food banks by 2030; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 320).

Road Safety (Cycle Helmets)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mark Pawsey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a person riding a bicycle on the public highway to wear a safety helmet; and for connected purposes.
Back in November 2015, my then 15-year-old constituent, Oliver Dibsdale, was cycling along Hillmorton High Street in Rugby when his foot slipped off the pedal and he fell. He hit his head on the kerb and was left with a serious brain injury. He spent four weeks in critical care and a further 15 weeks at Birmingham Children’s Hospital and the Central England Rehabilitation Unit in Leamington Spa.
Oliver had hoped to be in the Public Gallery here today, but because of the severity of his disability he would have needed two support staff to accompany him from Rugby and had to meet the significant cost of their travel expenses. Oliver was told by his doctor, Dr Badwan, that, had he been wearing a helmet, he may still have sustained an injury, but it would have been far less severe. When I met Oliver, he told me that he usually wore a helmet when cycling and that he bitterly regrets his decision on that occasion to ride without one. He spoke to me in a very moving way about the impact his injury has had on his family and the guilt he feels for the amount of time they have had to spend caring for him. He very much wants to help other families to avoid this fate. The Bill will achieve that aim.
The mandatory wearing of cycle helmets has been considered in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) introduced the Bicycles (Children’s Safety Helmets) Bill as long ago as 2007. A broader debate took place on the topic of cycling safety in Westminster Hall on 21 November 2012, when nine Members took part. At a personal level, on a recent family holiday, we rented bikes. When the person serving us offered me a helmet, I initially declined. He then looked me in the eye and asked, “Just how many brains do you have, sir?” I took the hint and I took the helmet, but there is not always someone on hand to offer such advice and ensure a helmet is worn. And as anybody who has children will know, children do not always take that advice. Oliver makes the point that it will be far easier for parents to insist that their children wear a helmet if it becomes a legal requirement.
When Oliver first contacted me nearly two years ago, he asked whether the Government would consider making cycle helmets a legal requirement. He explained his circumstances: six years after his accident, he remains in a wheelchair and is likely to do so for the rest of his life; he has lost the use of his left arm; and he has missed so much that his peers have experienced. He finds it extremely frustrating whenever he sees cyclists on the road without helmets because, from his personal experience, he knows all too well the risk they are taking.
After my meeting with Oliver, I wrote on his behalf to the Department for Transport and received an explanation of the work undertaken as part of the cycling and walking investment strategy of 2017 and the subsequent consultation in 2018. The focus of this work has rightly been to increase levels of cycling and walking and to  make the UK’s roads safer for vulnerable users, including cyclists. Following that work, the Department’s clear advice to all cyclists, as set out in rule 59 of the highway code, is that cyclists should wear helmets, but the Government do not intend to legislate. I shared the Government’s response with Oliver at my advice surgery. He continues to contest it and makes a compelling case from his own experience for helmets to be mandatory.
To take his case further, I arranged for Oliver to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), then Minister for Transport. Oliver was very pleased to have the opportunity to make his case here in Westminster to the Minister and I thank my hon. Friend for accommodating us. We had an excellent discussion but, to Oliver’s disappointment, the Government’s position remains unchanged—that the wearing of helmets should be a matter of choice, not compulsory.
Oliver continues to disagree and draws attention to a number of counts. He points out that it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt and that it is compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that, unlike travelling by car and motorbike, there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, there should not be any discouragement of cycling and some people might be put off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. Oliver replies to this that, if people want to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym.
A further line of argument cited by opponents to mandatory wearing of cycle helmets is that legislation would be difficult to enforce. While it would certainly create an additional burden on the police, it does not  strike me as particularly difficult to enforce compared with other offences: it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone, or a car passenger without a seatbelt. No one here suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice on the basis of difficulties in enforcing the current legislation.
In support of mandatory wearing of helmets, a 2016 review and analysis of previous research, undertaken by Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton, drew on data from 64,000 injured cyclists. They found very large protective effects from helmets, estimating 85% and 88% reductions in head and brain injury respectively for helmeted cyclists relative to unhelmeted. The House of Commons Library notes that pedal cyclists are 23 times more likely to be a casualty and more likely to die on the road than a motorist. If mandatory safety measures are acceptable for car drivers, they should also be acceptable for cyclists.
Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Given all the data about how much safer cyclists are when they wear a helmet and the strong arguments from Oliver—a person who acknowledges that his life has been transformed by the simple failure to put on his helmet that fateful day in 2015—this Bill to mandate the wearing of helmets by cyclists is intended to ensure that far fewer cyclists have to suffer the experience that Oliver went through and has to live with every day of his life. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mark Pawsey, Judith Cummins, Dan Carden, Mr Peter Bone and Dr Luke Evans present the Bill.
Mark Pawsey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 321).

Opposition Day - [17th Allotted Day]Opposition Day

Mental Health Treatment and Support

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Rosena Allin-Khan: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the scale of the mental health crisis facing the country with patients suffering with mental health issues waiting more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency last year; further notes with concern the mental health crisis facing young people with nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment; recognises the health inequalities within the use of the Mental Health Act 1983; and calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit thousands of mental health staff to expand access to treatment, to provide access to specialist mental health support in every school, to establish open access mental health hubs for children and young people and to bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
After 13 years in office, this Government have delivered the worst mental health crisis in our history. We are becoming a brittle, anxious, fractious society, the very bonds of which are frayed and torn. The causes of mental ill health are complex: poverty, homelessness, neglect, loneliness, debt, bereavement, domestic violence and child and adult trauma. Our understanding of mental health is developing all the time. We have moved on in the years since I trained as a doctor. We can now see how interlinked and enmeshed the range of factors is: warm and safe homes, fulfilling work, strong relationships, safe streets, opportunities to learn, fresh air and green spaces are policies for good mental health.
Nye Bevan talked about the serenity in knowing that medical care is free at the point of need. After 13 years of Conservatives, we are far from serene. For many of the families I meet, the future is filled with dark clouds, fear of displacement and debt, and a sense that society is going to hell in a handcart—a Britain where nothing works, where everything is broken and where everything costs more than six months ago. Zero-hours contracts, boarded up high streets, rapacious landlords, rising lawlessness and antisocial behaviour and the long-term effects of covid—no wonder we are in the grip of a mental health crisis.

Toby Perkins: I am very pleased with the way my hon. Friend has started her speech, because she is absolutely right. Alongside the additional healthcare staff needed and the many measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and I have been spelling out for the health service, the society that has been created over the past 13 years of austerity has had massive impact on the mental health crisis. I am glad that my hon. Friend has focused on that. It will be the job of the entire future Labour Government to support her and her colleagues to reduce the mental health crisis.

Rosena Allin-Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is right. I will talk about the need for mental health not to exist in a silo later in my remarks. Frankly, it is the problem of every single Government Department.
One in four people experiences a problem with their mental health each year in England. One in six people experiences a mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, each week. Three in four people with mental ill health in England receive little or no treatment for their condition. And people with the most severe mental illnesses die up to 20 years sooner than the general population. I ask the House to reflect on that for a moment. Tragically, in 2021, over 5,000 suicides were registered, up by 300 on the previous year. The Government should wear these statistics like a badge of shame.

Andrew Bridgen: The shadow Minister makes an accurate assessment of the size of the mental health crisis facing our nation, but her words would have more resonance if she and her party had not voted in lockstep with the Government for the disastrous lockdowns that damaged mental health, especially that of our young people. Will she apologise?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I will take no lectures from the hon. Member, because he proudly sat as a Member of a Government who oversaw hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Families are still feeling the ongoing mental effects of losing loved ones because of the mishandling of the pandemic by his then Government.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, launched Labour’s mission for health in May. He said:
“Suicide is the biggest killer of young lives in this country, the biggest killer. That statistic should haunt us, and the rate is going up. Our mission—must be and will be—to get it down.”
He is right. Across the House, we are increasingly hearing brave, moving and revealing testimonies about our own experiences and struggles. It is vital that we challenge the stigma and talk openly about mental health.

Dan Carden: My hon. Friend and I have worked on these issues over the last couple of years. She knows that 70% of people who enter treatment for alcohol issues also experience trouble with their mental health. The Public Accounts Committee recently released a report on alcohol treatment services, and recommendation 4 called on the Government to set out, without delay
“what it is doing to help improve integrated care for people with co-occurring alcohol and mental health problems.”
Will she use her position today to encourage the Government to act on that recommendation?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I could not be more proud to work with my hon. Friend in this space. He is a powerful advocate and I wholeheartedly support all his efforts, and those of Members across the House, to support people who are living with alcoholism, and their families. I thank him; we will continue to support his work.

Jim Shannon: I commend the shadow Minister and the Labour party for bringing this issue forward. Support for mental health across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a massive issue, including in my constituency. For example, one of my constituents told me they finally found the courage to seek help for their mental health, only to be told by health professionals, “We  can’t do anything for you just now as your condition is not severe enough yet—you have no thoughts of suicide.” Does the hon. Lady agree that supporting those with mental health issues at the earliest stage—right away—is more beneficial, instead of forcing them to wait until it may be too late? At that stage, the situation cannot be turned back.

Rosena Allin-Khan: I thank the hon. Member; it has been a pleasure to work with him in every single debate about mental health that I have held in the past three years, since I started my role. He speaks to the important point that prevention is the watchword that counts when it comes to mental health.

Janet Daby: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the Government are failing people who are experiencing mental ill health, or even a mental health crisis? Psychiatrists are leaving the country because they are finding jobs overseas more accessible. People experiencing mental health crises are having to wait in A&E departments for too long; they waited for a total of 5.4 million hours during 2021, which is entirely unacceptable. Things need to change.

Rosena Allin-Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for assisting me in writing my speech; she has pre-empted much of what is to come. She is a powerful advocate for her community and I am proud to share the Opposition Benches with her.

Laura Farris: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I will make some progress, but I would be happy to take further interventions after that.
Amid all the anguish and pain, one thing comes through: people cannot access the mental health services they need. The stark fact is that the way the UK’s mental health services are funded and distributed can exacerbate the problem, so instead of making people better, they are making them worse.
The current reality is that 1.6 million people are waiting for treatment. More than 1 million people had their referral closed without receiving any help in the last year alone. Last year, children in mental health crisis spent more than 900,000 hours in A&E and almost 400,000 children are on waiting lists. In the same period, adults experiencing a mental health crisis spent over 5.4 million hours in A&E. Black people are five times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white people. People with eating disorders are being put on a palliative care pathway.

Ben Spencer: Will the shadow Minister join me in welcoming the work the Government have done to bring forward the draft Mental Health Bill? We both sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Hopefully, the Bill will right some of those wrongs.

Rosena Allin-Khan: It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member on the draft Mental Health Bill. However, as I will say later in my speech, I have little confidence that the draft Mental Health Bill will move  beyond the draft stage. We need to debate the issues in the House, to ensure that what we know needs to be fixed is actually fixed, so that we can help people in our communities, including black people, who are more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, and people with autism and neurodiversity, who are mistreated simply as a result of having that diagnosis, so that their lives can be better lived. We need these issues to come before the House, so that we can debate them and move forward.

Jeff Smith: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the demand on A&E, but there is demand on other public services as well. When I have been out with the police in south Manchester, I have been shocked by the sheer amount of time they spend dealing with people in mental health crisis. I am sure we all know the amount of time our staff spend dealing with people in mental health crisis. Does she agree that it is a false economy not to invest properly in mental health services, because of the impact on other public services?

Rosena Allin-Khan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; he is right. It is also a false economy because of the impact mental ill health has on families. Not investing in one person’s mental ill health not only has an impact on their working and earning potential, but has a knock-on impact on that of their parents, siblings and other family members. People are currently sitting at home on suicide watch for their children because they cannot get access to the timely help and treatment they need. This is Tory Britain.
What has been the response from the Government to these alarming facts? Ministers have junked the 10-year mental health plan and binned thousands of responses to the consultation. Seni’s law, set out in a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), passed unanimously, but it has not been fully implemented. It was passed almost five years ago and there have been three subsequent Ministers, and yet we are in the highly unusual situation where it has not been commenced in full. Who exactly is against the monitoring of the disproportionate use of force? The House certainly was not against it when the Bill was passed.
The Government have announced plans for new mental health hospitals, but those new hospitals are not new. The hospitals announced on 25 May—Surrey and Borders, Derbyshire and Merseycare—were already in the pipeline.
Let us talk about the Minister’s own patch, to really see the scale of the issue. At his closest hospital, adults experiencing a mental health crisis waited 11,000 hours in A&E last year. There are over 5,000 children and 40,000 adults stuck on mental health waiting lists across his integrated care board. Thousands of local people were turned away from services before treatment; I am sure the Minister will agree that that is unacceptable. As ever, we have smoke and mirrors when we need bricks and mortar. If this seems bleak, that is because it is.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about a very important issue. One of my constituents who works in psychiatric care has talked of staff having to deal with violence, verbal abuse, being swilled with boiling water and more. He says that they are under extreme pressure,  which is causing some to leave and putting more pressure on those who remain. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shocking and unsustainable state of affairs, and that we need a Labour Government who will invest in mental health services?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who works tirelessly on this issue.
After more than a decade of Tory Governments, if people need help, all too often no one is there. Last year, emergency service workers took more than a million sick days because of stress. NHS staff are at the sharp end of this mental health crisis. I know them, I work with them, and I see what they are coping with daily. They are heroes, but they simply do not have the resources, the staff or the leadership from Ministers that would enable them to do their jobs. They themselves suffer exhaustion, depression, stress and anxiety. About 17,000 staff—12% of the mental health workforce—left last year.
You will be pleased to know that I have had a look at the Government’s amendment, Mr Speaker—I do my homework. There is the tired old £2.3 billion figure. How many times have we heard that trotted out? Actually, I can tell the House that it has been used more than 90 times over five years, and it has been spent in myriad different ways. Then there is the £150 million for mental health crisis units. But the amendment fails to mention the serious patient safety concerns that doctors have raised, and it is clear that the pressure on A&E remains as fierce as ever. There is also nothing about the recent announcement from the Metropolitan police that they will not help people in a mental health crisis.
Ministers need to get out of Whitehall and see what is really happening in our mental health service. If they did so, they would see what I have seen in recent months. They would see the junior psychiatrists whom I met recently—junior doctors who have devoted all their training to this profession, and half of whom plan to leave the NHS at the end of their training. They would see the doctor who told me of an incident in which six police officers were in A&E for 18 hours with a patient detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. They would see a child arriving at A&E after self-harming, having been referred by the GP a long time ago but not been seen for weeks, which led to an escalation point and a crisis in A&E. We are seeing a system in crisis, people in pain and families in distress.

Munira Wilson: The shadow Minister has referred several times to children’s mental health and the crisis that often occurs when they present at A&E departments. Does she agree that schools have an important role to play when children have moderate mental health conditions, before those conditions escalate? The role of mental health support teams in schools is critical, but their funding is due to end abruptly next year, with only about half the programme complete. Will she join me in asking the Minister to commit himself to funding the full roll-out of mental health support teams or, better still, to back the Liberal Democrats’ plan to provide a qualified mental health practitioner in every school?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I invite the hon. Member to have a look at the plans we already have in place. She will be pleased to learn that one of our pledges is the provision  of a mental health specialist in every school. I invite her to support those Labour plans—and to come and join us over here if she feels like it.

Luke Pollard: Young people are bearing the brunt of the mental health crisis, and parents are worried sick. I see evidence of that every day in my inbox, and it is getting worse. When so little money is being spent on young people’s mental health, even though we know that the vast majority of mental health conditions appear in people under the age of 18, is the balance right between the money spent on adult mental health and that spent on young people’s mental health? If we want a preventive system that helps to cut costs for the taxpayer and helps people as well, is not investing early in young people the best way to achieve that?

Rosena Allin-Khan: My hon. Friend is spot on in making the point, very articulately, that prevention is our watchword. It is vital that we have mental health access hubs in every community to give people the support that they need; it is essential that we have mental health specialist support in every school; and it is essential that mental health does not operate in a Health silo, because when it comes to improving adverse childhood experiences that can lead to poor mental health in later life, that is every Department’s issue.
I have asked Ministers six times to tell us of their meetings with mental health trusts where there are reported abuse scandals, but they have failed to respond. In-patient services across England must be reviewed, with patients’ voices at the centre. After a series of allegations in different settings, the Government have dragged their feet, and we are still waiting for the findings of their data exercise, in which no one even spoke to families or patients. They could start by giving statutory powers to the inquiry into deaths in Essex mental health units.
What else needs to change? First, we need to speed up diagnosis and treatment. The longer we leave a mental health disorder untreated, the worse it gets—just like cancer, sepsis and heart conditions. Delays cost patients their wellbeing and their families their peace of mind, and of course it costs the taxpayer more to treat a patient who is more acutely unwell after months and years of delay. The argument for prevention, early intervention, speedy diagnosis and timely treatment is clear. Labour will guarantee treatment within a month for all who need it, which will be better for patients and better for the NHS.
Secondly, we need a tough new target for delivery—something for the whole system to drive for, and something for the voters to judge us on. Labour will recruit 8,500 new staff, so that 1 million more people can access treatment every year by the end of Labour’s first term in office.
Thirdly, we will reach out to our young people, and give the next generation the support that they desperately need. This is the generation who have known little or no security: children who have gone through the great financial crash, austerity and covid, robbed of their future and dismissed as snowflakes. We will open a mental health access hub for children and young people in every community, providing early intervention and drop-in services, and we will provide access to a mental health professional in every school. This is a true community, preventive approach in action.
Fourthly, we will stop mental health policy being placed in a silo. As I said at the beginning of my speech, mental health policy cannot be disentangled from social and economic policy. A decision on Bank of England interest rates takes its toll on the mental health of a family in Tooting. We are all interconnected. The economy is not an abstract concept; it is people. The next Labour Government will present a long-term, whole-Government plan to improve mental health outcomes—mental health in all policies.
Fifthly, Labour Ministers will allocate to mental health its fair share of funding, as the economy grows and as resources allow. For starters, we will close tax loopholes, putting the country’s mental health first. That is our plan and, crucially, it will not be solely the responsibility of the incoming new mental health Minister; it will be the responsibility of the whole Cabinet and the whole Government.
We have seen enough plans, we have heard enough announcements, and we have watched enough Ministers pass in and out of the revolving doors of 39 Victoria Street. Let us have no more Tory sticking plasters. Labour’s health mission, guided by prevention and anchored in community, gives children the best start and boosts the economy, with more people in better health. With a clear plan, with clear costings and with resolute leadership, we will deliver the world-class health system that our society truly deserves.

Neil O'Brien: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes the increased burden on mental health following the pandemic, including on young people and those with severe mental illness; recognises the historic levels of investment being delivered by this Government into services, with an increase of £2.3 billion per year in front-line mental health funding over the past four years; notes that current NHS targets around access to talking therapies and intervention in psychosis are being met due to the efforts of NHS staff; and acknowledges the investment in mental health teams in schools, as well as the ongoing investment into open access mental health helplines in the 111 service and into the estate, including three new mental health hospitals to be opened in the next two years accompanied by a further £150 million in investment in new mental health ambulances and the development of better alternatives to accident and emergency services, including crisis houses, safe havens and step-down services.”
Improving mental health is a top priority for this Government. We can all agree that in the past it was not given the priority it deserves, and was seen as something to be ashamed of and not spoken about. Thankfully, we are changing that. We are working to achieve parity of esteem between physical health and mental health, with record amounts of investment going into NHS mental health services in England, and the stigma surrounding mental health is being reduced.
“The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”, which was published in 2016, was a major step forward and secured an additional £1 billion in funding for mental health, so that an additional 1 million people could access high-quality services by 2020-21. It was followed by the NHS long-term plan in 2019, which committed an additional £2.3 billion a year for the  expansion and transformation of mental health services in England by 2024, so that an additional 2 million people could get the NHS-funded mental health support that they need. It is also funding the increase in the frontline mental health workforce to meet the plan’s ambition for 27,000 additional mental health staff by 2023-24. There were 138,610 full-time equivalent mental health staff at the end of 2022, an increase of 8,900 on the previous year and of 20,700 on December 2010, so the mental health workforce in the NHS is radically bigger. In total, we spent around £3 billion more on mental health last year compared with four years ago. That is an increase of a quarter.
Backed by this huge investment, we are expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults to meet the long-term plan’s ambition for an additional 1.9 million people to access National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved treatments for conditions such as anxiety and depression. From starting small in 2008, around 1.2 million people are now accessing NHS talking therapies every year, with 98% waiting less than 18 weeks for their treatment and 90% waiting less  than six weeks. This means that we are delivering well over our national waiting time targets of 95% and 75% respectively.
Local mental health services are transforming community mental health care to give 370,000 adults and older adults with severe mental illnesses greater choice and control over their care and to support them to live well in their communities. We recognise that poor mental health is a major cause of sickness absence in the workplace and we are providing support to employees and employers on mental health in the workplace. We have announced additional measures to support workplace mental health, including a package to support the long-term sick and disabled to remain in or return to work. This includes £200 million for digital mental health to modernise NHS talking therapies, to provide free access to wellness and clinical mental health apps for the population, and to pilot cutting-edge digital therapeutics. There will be around £75 million to expand individual placement and support services to help more people with severe mental health illnesses into employment.

Emma Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Neil O'Brien: I will make a little progress first.
We know that the number of children and young people experiencing mental ill health is rising, and that many of them will continue to experience mental health problems later in life. Spending on children and young people’s mental health continues to grow, from £841 million in 2019-20 to £995 million a year later, and now to £1.1 billion in 2022-23. This means that we are helping more children and young people than ever before. In 2021-22, there were over 743,000 new referrals to children’s and young people’s mental health services, which is 41% higher than the year before.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Neil O'Brien: I will make a bit of progress before I give way.
The long-term plan will ensure that 345,000 more children and young people can get the mental health support they need when they need it.
We are committed to ensuring that children and young people can access mental health support in school, so that they can access help with anxiety and depression and other common mental health services before problems become more serious. In that way, we can prevent—in exactly the way we all agree on—the problems from becoming more serious. That includes continuing to roll out mental health support teams to schools and colleges in England.

Fleur Anderson: The picture that the Minister is painting does not quite tally with the experience that I am seeing in families, many of whom are watching with a feeling of helplessness as their children’s mental health deteriorates while they are on long waiting lists. In the NHS South West London ICB area, there are over 10,000 young people on waiting lists, and many have their cases closed without even getting the support they need. That leaves them with deteriorating mental health and it leaves their families in despair. How is it that the money the Minister is talking about does not seem to get through to the young people who need help?

Neil O'Brien: I will come to the point about waiting lists in a moment.
Let me complete my thoughts on prevention, which I think we all agree is important. There are 3.4 million pupils covered by mental health support teams in 2022-23, which equates to about 35% coverage of pupils in schools and learners in further education in England. We expect around 500 teams to be up and running by 2024, covering around 44% of pupils and learners, so it will be up from 35% to 44%. Over 10,000 schools and colleges now have a trained senior mental health lead, including more than six in 10 state-funded secondary schools in England. On prevention, the Government are also providing £150 million of capital investment in NHS mental health urgent and emergency care infrastructure over the next two years.

Andy McDonald: While the Minister is addressing the issue of young people, can I say that I have yet to hear any news from the Department as to whether there will be a public inquiry into the deaths of the three young women who died under the care of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Foundation NHS Trust. Can he enlighten me on that?

Neil O'Brien: This is an extremely important issue that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise. We will be producing the results of the rapid review in the coming weeks, so he will not have to wait very long.

Munira Wilson: Like other colleagues, I see many children in my constituency waiting well over a year, sometimes two years, to access child and adolescent mental health services, so I was alarmed when NHS England recently told me that, on the latest modelling, the number of NHS-commissioned training posts in London for child and adolescent psychiatry will halve by 2031. I have no idea what is driving this modelling, but given that one in six seven to 16-year-olds have a probable mental health disorder, will the Minister at least look into these figures and undertake to write to me to explain why we are seeing such a drop in the number of training places?

Neil O'Brien: Those are not figures that I am familiar with or recognise, but I will certainly take this up with the London commissioners because it sounds like an important issue. I have talked about the dramatic increase we have already seen in the mental health workforce, and we are setting out further steps in our long-term workforce plan, but I will take that away and look at it closely with other Ministers.

Toby Perkins: One of the issues here is that the demand for mental health services has gone through the roof, from 3.6 million in 2020-21 to 4.5 million in 2021-22. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) was clear in her view, which I share, that the policies of this Government have been a factor in driving up the mental health demand. Does the Minister accept that? If not, what does he put it down to?

Neil O'Brien: I was just coming to that, but on the point about prevention and the social origins of these things, we are in agreement about tackling the origins of these things. In terms of financial security, that is why we are providing financial help worth £3,300 per household, one of the most dramatically generous packages anywhere in Europe. The question of good housing was raised earlier. We have the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and we are taking action to extend the decent homes standard to the private rented sector.

Luke Evans: Is it not the case that we have to be really careful about what we are talking about? There is a difference between mental wellbeing and mental health. We all suffer with our mental wellbeing but we do not all suffer with our mental health, and we therefore need to have the support that is appropriate. Social prescribing, for example, has a fundamental ability to help people who suffer with their mental wellbeing. Are the Government doing anything more to drive up social prescribing, so that GPs and allied professions can get the support from the third sector and other voluntary organisations that people so desperately need for their mental wellbeing?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend, as an experienced clinician, makes an important and thoughtful point. This is exactly why we have so dramatically increased the number of social prescribers in primary care. An example in Britain is the parkrun practices initiative, which is connecting people to sporting and cultural activities that can improve mental wellbeing as well as mental health. My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why this is a priority for us.

Andrew Bridgen: The suicide rate in North West Leicestershire increased by more than 300% during the lockdown. Does the Minister know what the increase was in his constituency?

Neil O'Brien: It is just not true there was an increase in suicides because of the lockdowns. There have been a whole series of careful studies of this and that is just not the case. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct about this.

Wera Hobhouse: Eating disorders are a national scandal and have reached epidemic proportions. Anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any mental health disorder and a third of people with binge eating disorders are at suicide risk. With at least 1.25 million  people suffering from eating disorders and with soaring waiting lists, is it not time that the Government appointed something like an eating disorder prevention champion to tackle this incredibly difficult but rising crisis?

Neil O'Brien: I completely agree about its tremendous importance, and I take this opportunity to mention the incredible work on this hugely important issue by brilliant charities such as Beat. I will outline some of the general things we are doing to increase capacity further.

Janet Daby: Only a few weeks ago, I met a constituent who endured an awful kidnapping and rape. She had some initial counselling and therapy from specialist services, but she has now been on the waiting list for more than a year and a half. What would the Minister say to my constituent, who desperately needs therapy?

Neil O'Brien: I am terribly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s case, which I will look at extremely closely. This is why we are putting in extra investment and tackling waiting lists.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Neil O'Brien: I should make a little progress before taking further interventions.
The Government are providing £150 million of capital investment in the NHS’s urgent and emergency care infrastructure for mental health over the next two years. Those interventions include £7 million for 90 new mental health ambulances, with the remaining £143 million going to more than 160 capital projects with a preventive focus. These include new urgent assessment and care centres, crisis cafés and crisis houses, health-based places of safety for people detained by the police and improvements to the NHS 111 and urgent mental health helplines. The hon. Member for Tooting talked about creating such facilities in the community, and we are already doing that. We are also investing £400 million between 2020-21 and 2023-24 to eradicate mental health dormitory accommodation, improving safety and dignity for patients. Twenty-nine projects have already been completed since the programme commenced in 2020-21, eradicating over 500 dormitory beds.

Ben Spencer: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the construction of the new Abraham Cowley unit, which will eradicate the dormitories that were in my constituency?

Neil O'Brien: I join my hon. Friend in celebrating that unit and his advocacy for people affected by mental health.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that he is trying to make progress. On the capital programme, one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) highlighted is Seni’s law, which will look at the treatment that patients receive in mental health units, where, sadly, restraint has led to deaths. The Minister talks about prevention, and we need to make sure that Seni’s law, which was enacted in November 2018, comes forward now. Does he agree?

Neil O'Brien: The remaining provisions will be commenced as soon as possible.
We are working with the NHS towards implementing new waiting time standards for people requiring urgent and emergency mental healthcare, in both A&E and the community, to ensure timely access to the most appropriate high-quality support. We also recognise that there is much more to be done to improve people’s experience in in-patient mental health facilities. The Minister with responsibility for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), has spoken to many Members following reports of abuse and care failings at a number of NHS and independent providers. We have been clear that anyone receiving treatment in an in-patient mental health facility deserves to receive safe, high-quality care and to be looked after with dignity and respect.
It is vital that, where care falls short, we learn from any mistakes to improve care across the NHS and to protect patients. That is why we have conducted a rapid review of mental health in-patient settings, with a specific focus on how we use data and evidence, including from complaints, feedback and whistleblowing reports, to identify risks to safety.

Marsha de Cordova: The Minister wants to talk about data and evidence. We know that, within the mental health crisis, there are huge, long-established racial disparities, with young black men disproportionately being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. The draft mental health Bill is still in train, and I would like to know exactly when the Government will table the Bill, which might stop these racial disparities and stop young black men dispro-portionately being sectioned.

Neil O'Brien: We are currently responding to pre-legislative scrutiny, so we are on the case. We are not just waiting, of course, and we are already doing things on these points, including through the culturally appropriate advocacy pilots for those at risk of detention and on the patient and carer race equality framework to avoid and prevent detention in the first place.
The rapid review’s report will be published very shortly. NHS England has also established a three-year quality transformation programme that seeks to tackle the root causes of unsafe, poor-quality in-patient care, including sexual safety, in mental health, learning disability and autism settings.
Our draft mental health Bill, which has been mentioned a few times in this debate, is intended to modernise the Mental Health Act so that it is fit for the 21st century and works better for people with serious mental illness. The draft Bill has completed its pre-legislative scrutiny, and we will respond to the Joint Committee’s recommendations very shortly.
In a world of increasing rates of multiple morbidity and diseases of increasing complexity, it is crucial that we continue our progress towards more person-centred, holistic care that considers a patient’s physical and mental health needs together. That is why we announced in January that we will be producing a major conditions strategy to tackle the conditions that contribute most to morbidity and mortality across the population of England, including mental health. The call for evidence is now open, and I encourage everyone to make their views known before it closes.

Liz Twist: The Minister is talking about the mental health strategy now being part of the major conditions strategy. Is he aware that many mental health organisations see it as a retrograde step that, having conducted an extensive consultation and invited views, the strategy will now be put back even further?

Neil O'Brien: I assure the hon. Lady that all contributions were fed into the major conditions strategy process. The reason why we are making the mental health strategy part of the major conditions strategy, and why we are looking at co-morbidities, is because, as the hon. Member for Tooting mentioned, people with mental health conditions have a shorter lifespan and, in general, the cause is typically a physical co-morbidity. It is essential that we look at these things together if we are to make progress on tackling disparities.
We have committed to publishing a new national suicide prevention strategy later this year, and we are engaging widely across the sector to understand what further action we can take to reduce cases of suicide. The new strategy will reflect new evidence and the national priority for preventing suicide across England, including action to tackle known risk factors and targeted action for groups of concern. We are also providing an extra £10 million over the next two years for a suicide prevention voluntary, community and social enterprise grant fund. This competitive grant fund will help to support the sector to deliver activity that can help to sustain services to help meet increased demand for support and to embed preventive activity that can help to prevent suicide and stem the flow into crisis services.

Liz Twist: Of course it is good that we will have a refreshed national suicide prevention strategy, and of course £10 million is welcome, but it is not out there yet. In the meantime, the £57 million that was earmarked for local work on suicide prevention has run out. Will the Minister consider making urgent interim arrangements to ensure that this vital work can continue until the strategy is published?

Neil O'Brien: I am conscious that we need to help the sector to maintain and grow its levels of service.
I finish by paying tribute to all those who do so much to support people’s mental health: frontline NHS staff, those working in the voluntary community and social enterprises, and all those who are quietly supporting a family member or loved one.

Jon Trickett: I think the whole House agrees that there is a mental health crisis, but the Minister’s presentation simply will not do. It was like a series of numbers read from a brief prepared by somebody who is remote from the reality of life in our country. It sounded complacent and like it was coming from on high, rather than from real experience.
I hope the House will not mind if I illustrate the general points I want to make by referring to my own area, as the experiences I am going to relate have a general significance for the country as a whole. First, let me agree with my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), that the seed beds that are creating the great demand for mental health services lie in the social and economic conditions that have been created following 13 years of  failed government. My constituency is 529th out of 533 English seats in social mobility—it is one of the most immobile socially. A child who is born today in the local hospital will die younger than those elsewhere in the country if they are in deprivation; there is no chance whatsoever of getting out of the crisis that so many families face, given the absence of social mobility across the country, but especially in areas such as mine. I am talking about deprivation where, in a constituency such as mine, access to a house, green space, healthy living and all the things one should expect to be able to achieve as a human being in one of the richest countries in the world are simply not available. That is the seed bed for the mental health crisis. I speak about my area, but this is a generic problem, as we all know. Even the Minister seemed to concede that in one of his responses, although the idea that the Government will somehow address the problems they have created after 13 years is preposterous.
The Minister talks a good talk on the Government’s intentions, but under his Government NHS staff wages have fallen, and nursing bursaries have been cut, as have mental health beds. In my area of Yorkshire we have lost a quarter of our mental health beds since 2010—since the Conservatives came into power and Labour was last in government. The loss of a bed may not sound much, but if we think about it, we see that dozens and perhaps hundreds of people would use that bed in a year. Every bed lost has a huge impact on a series of individuals, families and even communities. The same applies to the loss of nurses and other qualified staff; these things are in decline. So it is no good the Minister standing there and repeating stuff that has been provided to him by the civil service.
It is scandalous that in my area of West Yorkshire 10,000 people in a single year were released from acute hospital with a recommendation that they receive mental health treatment and all of them failed to get a mental health appointment. They were then removed from the list without any opportunity to receive even the basic courtesy of a single half-hour meeting. Beyond that, in the same year, 60,000 patients in Yorkshire had to be referred to a provider outside their area. Let us just think about this: we are talking about people with mental health problems being sent to an area that is unfamiliar to them, miles away from anywhere they know or feel comfortable and loved in, in order to receive basic treatment. It is not acceptable that that is happening in Yorkshire.
Suicide has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, from all parts of the House. In West Yorkshire, the figure for men committing suicide is over 20 per 100,000, whereas the figure for the country as a whole is 16 per 100,000. Let us just think about that. It is because of the deprivation and the problems we face in our area. Why should we put up with a postcode lottery that fails to address the mental health needs of young people, with the result that we have a quarter more suicides in West Yorkshire than in the rest of the country? That is shocking, but this is the kind of society that the Government have created and they have then cut the services that would provide the basic support that a civilised society should provide.
Let me refer to two profoundly shocking cases, which I am sure are reproduced everywhere in the country. The first involves a family who have an 18-year-old  daughter. She has a mental health issue and it has led to her becoming immobilised physically. She was admitted to an acute hospital over the weekend—she is unable to move. The hospital insisted that she left yesterday, but there is no care package and no assistance for her. The doctor said, “My advice to you is to get some treatment, but you won’t get it on the NHS because you’ll wait for years. Your need is urgent. Go to a private practitioner.” That was what he recommended. We looked it up and found it will be £3,000 per month to get the treatment. This is treatment that should be provided by a civilised Government, but we do not have a civilised Government—it is shocking. This morning, that young woman of 18 was left on her own on a sofa—not even with a commode provided—with two glasses of water and a bloomin’ sandwich while the family went off to work to try to earn the money to pay. It is a disgrace that that happens in our society.
Finally, I come to the issue of people with mental health issues in care homes. These care homes are in some ways very good, but in other ways this is a racket. We have a care home in my area that the Care Quality Commission condemned in 2020. Nothing was done by the owners to improve the situation but the CQC did not go back, presumably because of covid, until November. It then said, “This home isn’t working, so you’ve got to move everybody out.” There are people there who are close to the end of life and others who have serious mental health issues. Closing that home is going to kill some people: let us be honest and blunt about it. It appears that its private owners are removing all the people in there with these mental health issues and putting them somewhere else, with no reference whatsoever and no care for people who have basically been commodities for them to use—but they are investing in the home. I have spoken to the CQC and asked: are those fit and proper persons to run such a home to care for people with mental health crises? My argument is that they are not and they have proved the point. They did not even go to appeal and the staff are being left on the scrapheap.
We have had a Government who, through austerity and the particular form of economic society they have created, have developed a major mental health crisis and then cut the required services. There is no prospect of their doing anything else to improve the situation. This is a serious problem. We must imagine ourselves in the situation of the family in the case I illustrated. This is a crisis that echoes throughout the land and it is not acceptable.
I finish on this point. We do need money putting into our mental health services, as everyone would agree. But why do the Government not start by saying that the staff—the carers, cleaners and all the clinical staff—get a proper rise? That would at least be a decent way to try to retain some of those people in house for now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I ought to have said after the Minister had spoken that the original Question was as on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper, and the Question is that the original words stand part of the Question. I do not think that my putting that to the Chamber after the hon. Member for Hemsworth  (Jon Trickett) has spoken will have made any difference to his speech—I do hope not. I prefer to get procedure absolutely correct. It will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and we have limited time. Therefore, we must have an immediate time limit of five minutes, which is quite generous really. We begin with Dean Russell.

Dean Russell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I will rip up my unwritten 50-minute speech.
I have previously said in this Chamber that, if suicide were a virus, we would be on the hunt for a vaccine; if loneliness were a disease, we would be looking for a cure. I welcome the debate today. I know that it is politically charged, but that is the nature of this Chamber. Any opportunity that we have to talk about mental health and to tackle the stigma around mental health must be welcome.
Of course, we are talking today about the support that is available to people, but one area on which I wish to focus is mental health in the workplace, which is a passion. We spend most of our lives in the workplace; we spend time with colleagues. We are perhaps not always truthful to ourselves about how we feel. Engagement in the workplace is essential to prevent mental ill health. One challenge is to ensure that there is parity across physical and mental health. I have argued about that in this place before, and received support from all parts of the House. I welcome parity around things such as first aid; that is essential.
I have been very pleased with the engagement that I have had with Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), and the Minister on the Front Bench today. I have also engaged with other Ministers in the Departments of Health and Social Care and for Work and Pensions. They have all been open to looking at how we can get better services and better support for colleagues in the workplace.
One challenge we face is stigma. I say gently and respectfully to Members in the Chamber today that, while of course these issues are politically charged and that we will all have a very strong view on this and on the need to make sure that services are in place, we are careful about the words that we use. When we talk about people not being able to get support, it might put off somebody from seeking and getting support. When we talk about some of the statistics, I ask Members to please be mindful about how they are used. We could deter a person in crisis from seeking help, because they might think that that help is not there, which could be dangerous.
I appreciate that we have a long way to go with mental health, but we have come quite a way. The support over the past few years and the change in stigma around mental health have been transformative, but we still have a way to go for the situation to be transformed. That means that, as politicians, chief executives of businesses and community leaders, we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough. Are we talking about this enough? Are we looking at those solutions enough?

Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about raising awareness. Yesterday, I hosted members from the NFU, who candidly said that, a few years ago, they would never have been speaking about these kinds of issues. We know that rural communities and farmers in particular suffer when it comes to asking for help. Is it not exactly those organisations coming forward and speaking about the problem that allows us to have this debate?

Dean Russell: I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. This morning, I was fortunate to host the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We had a roundtable discussion with different charities, organisations and leaders in this space about what we need to do and what that looks like. It looks like more funding—there is always an argument for that and rightly so; it means ensuring that we support people who have gone through crises, and that we look at that long-term support; but it is also about how we shift the conversation. For me, it must be about parity between physical and mental health. A few years ago, an amendment was tabled that would have introduced more parity of funding. As a Government, we need to look again at that amendment. Other important steps would include a mental health Bill. I appreciate that we need to move forward with that as soon as possible, and I echo the calls for such legislation, but we should not be damning everything that has been done so far, because huge strides have been made, especially in relation to extra funding.
When I was a councillor many years ago, I worked with local schools to look at what support was in place. I wanted to know whether the children as well as the teachers were aware of the support that was available. If we were to do the same survey today, we would find that the situation is far better than it was 10 or 15 years ago, but, as I have said, there is still a way to go.
I want to finish on a few brief points. When we consider the challenges around mental health, we must understand that the problem is not mental health alone. There is always some sort of comorbidity and there is always some impact on physical health. When we talk about parity, we are not just saying, “one person with mental ill health and one person with physical ill health must be seen equally”. That, of course, is important, but we must also be mindful of the fact that if somebody has a mental health condition it may affect their ability to work. On the flipside, a physical health condition may impact a person’s ability to get out of bed in the morning and their ability to do exercise. All those things are essential.
I hope that my words, from the Conservative Back Benches, will echo across the House: we want to get to a position where mental health is a priority across all of society. Both the Government and our communities play a part in that, and how we talk about this matters. I hope that we can talk civilly about the opportunities that are available. I urge colleagues to talk about what support is out there as much as, quite rightly, challenging Government and all of us to do more.

Neil Coyle: I also wish to speak civilly. For me, this is fundamentally a debate about mum. My mum was diagnosed with schizophrenia before I started primary school, so I have been talking about mental ill health all my life. Growing  up, we saw on a weekly basis the inadequacies in support, the rough treatment from mental health services and the results of poor medication. We cannot ignore the fact that there have been some improvements, but some of the worst of the ‘80s appears to be returning after 13 years of Tory Government. Governments have failed to improve the system, which is described as the Cinderella service, since before Cinderella was written, which apparently was as long ago as 1697—I discovered that only today.
This crisis is exposed in that lack of access to support, lack of outreach, lack of choice, lack of control over support being received even where it is received, lack of genuine community care and lack of priority being given to mental healthcare overall. It is also exposed through an overuse of detention. Detention is necessary when people cannot manage their own safety, but it is the most costly end of mental health treatment when all else has failed. It is more expensive than sending people to prison in this country, but it is over-relied on by a failing Government who are unable to see long-term needs and the means of saving funds as well as saving people.
As has been mentioned, this is also a crisis exposed by a rising inability to meet need, as demonstrated by the size of, and time spent on, waiting lists. The shadow Minister mentioned 400,000 children. I bumped into Karen, my constituent, on the bus this morning. She finally has an appointment for counselling after three years of waiting in Southwark. Therefore I speak today from personal experience and as an MP representing a community with a high prevalence of mental health conditions, including some of the highest levels of psychosis anywhere in the country. However, I am privileged to speak as MP of an area where there is greater support for some people.
Southwark’s Labour council has been at the forefront of instigating measures, including online support, the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care, the Nest system for the under-25s and an equivalent wellbeing hub for the over-25s, which helped more than 2,000 people last year. I am talking here about fast access, professional support that does not require a GP referral or a long wait of time. This is vital support on the frontline delivered by a Labour council and an integrated care board, which are prioritising correctly.
We are also a community served by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. SLAM staff do their best to meet needs, but, sadly, I see people and their families who are not best served. I know that SLAM wants to do more—I speak to the staff and I met the chief executive last week—but it is limited by a Government who lack ambition and intent. The Government are not just ignoring the crisis, but contributing to it through things such as benefit cuts, and allowing food bank dependency and debt in a way that contributes to mental ill health. This is also a Government who are cutting capacity. The Minister made some claims about figures at the Dispatch Box just now, but SLAM told me last week that, despite the level of the crisis, it is cutting £45 million this year. What that means in practice is horrible.
I wish to talk about the human impact. I met Stephen Crawford through the Walworth community council. I have known him since 2010. To be clear from the start, this was a man who was known to the local community and known to council care workers and local mental  health services. He had severe anxiety. He was a sweet, gentle soul, but he was a target for those seeking to misuse him and his home with criminal intent. Understandably, he became very agitated about his home following break-in attempts and thefts. He was ultimately sectioned and detained for his own wellbeing, but then discharged to the unsafe home that he had told everyone he was unable to live in. He called the London Ambulance Service daily. He and others called the police. The police told me they had visited and intervened 56 times in recent months due to his behaviour. It was a crisis for him, for his neighbours in the street, including Norma and the Groombridges, who were trying to help him, for the London Ambulance Service, which is already overstretched and struggling, and for the police, who now say they may have to stop responding to mental health call-outs.
Stephen was discharged and did not get sufficient support. On Wednesday 19 April, just three days later, he climbed through the window frame on the top floor of a Browning Street building. He told everyone he would take his own life. The police attended, but he fell and was pronounced dead the following week.
That is what the mental health crisis means in practice—the loss of life, the human tragedy. Stephen deserved better, and if individuals like him, whole communities such as mine and multiple public services are not to face similar situations, with the avoidable costs and loss of human life, mental health reform must deliver better. I hope we see a serious case review and I look forward to that coming forward.

Neil Hudson: I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a crucial issue. We have heard already about the importance of parity of esteem between physical and mental health, something I have been speaking about since my maiden speech. I am passionate that we achieve that parity.
I welcome the Government’s announcements over many months, the actions and contributions of Ministers and the £3 billion a year increase in funding. The £10 million in the Budget for suicide prevention was especially welcome, as was the £150 million for mental health facilities. I particularly welcome the £3 million for the mental health crisis centre at the Carleton Clinic in Carlisle.
As we have already heard across the House, prevention is important in mental health. We have heard a lot about young people, and we know that, sadly, suicide is the biggest killer of people under 35. I pay tribute again to 3 Dads Walking; I have been privileged and humbled to work with the three dads, Andy, Mike and Tim, who tragically lost their precious daughters Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide. They have been able to channel their personal tragedy into trying to help people and raise awareness about suicide prevention. We are working hard to get age-appropriate suicide prevention into the school curriculum. The Prime Minister and the Education Secretary have met us and we are making significant progress on that.
I think this is an area that really unites us in humanity across the House. I very much respect the shadow Minister and her clinical expertise in this area, and it is crucial that we talk about prevention. I am grateful to the 41 hon. Members who signed my early-day motion on suicide prevention in the school curriculum and increasing mental health first aid provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) has been a passionate champion for mental health first aid training. I have had mental health first aid training during my career in higher education. I have also had ASIST, or applied suicide intervention skills training, and I can tell hon. Members that it is very important. It does not make someone a consultant in mental health, but it helps them to have those discussions and be able to signpost people to the help they need.
I have put that training into practice with people I have worked with, and a great sense of relief has welled up in some of these people, who have said, “Oh my goodness, Neil, you understand.” I could then have discussions with them about seeking the support that they need. I passionately advocate that the Government work to increase mental health first aid training in educational settings and in the workplace. The more people we have on the frontline who can signpost people who need help, the better.
I also want to talk about rural mental health. Two or three weeks ago, our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published a report on rural mental health. I pay tribute to those who provide so much support to people out in rural communities, including charities such as the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, You Are Not Alone, the Farming Community Network, Farmerados and, more broadly, the Samaritans, Vetlife, Mind, PAPYRUS and Every Life Matters. Rural mental health is a critical issue.
The EFRA Committee has made strong recommendations to the Government. I was pleased to attend the NFU reception yesterday, which had rural mental health at its heart. Our inquiry covered some of the issues around stigma that we have talked about in this debate. People are reluctant to put their hand up and say that they are struggling, including farmers and vets—as a vet, my profession is sadly over-represented in mental health issues and incidents of suicide. It is important that the stigma is broken down and mechanisms put in place so that people can seek out support.
In rural communities there are also acute stress events such as animal disease outbreaks. I witnessed the trauma from foot and mouth disease in 2001, and those ripples still affect rural communities today. The mental health trauma on people when avian influenza comes and their animals or birds are culled out is significant.
Our inquiry has made recommendations and, as we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches, we need cross-Government working on the problem, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs working with the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport to mitigate issues such rural isolation, connectivity, broadband and transport. It is so important.
This is an area that unites us in humanity across the House. I firmly believe that debates such as this can really help the Government to develop their policies and support people’s mental health.

Toby Perkins: At 11.33 yesterday morning, this House finished Prayers and the first questions to the Health Secretary began. Disgracefully, two hours and five minutes later, the Government’s business was done and hon. Members were told that, if they had no further meetings, they could go home. This exhausted Government had literally nothing left to say or do.
It is therefore hugely welcome that my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) have stepped forward on behalf of the Government-in-waiting to ensure that today there is a debate on a matter of considerable importance. Every week in my constituency surgeries I meet parents exasperated that the treatment and support that they know their children need is not available. That can lead to the unchecked exacerbation of problems and children missing school—not the odd day, but months at a time. Whole years of their schooling are lost and family routines decimated as the entire family steps in to provide the support that an earlier intervention could have prevented.
Mental health is not a minority issue. Every year, one in four people will experience a common mental health problem. This Government are guilty of both underfunding mental health services and, through their actions, causing the number of people with mental health problems to rise. We all know that the Government have allowed our country’s economy to end up in a terrible mess and that money is short, but it is welcome and right that the Labour party and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North have been able to secure a commitment for additional funding from shadow Treasury colleagues—all of us who sit in Front Bench positions will know that is very difficult—to pursue the plans that are so desperately needed.
I want to talk about access to services locally. Stephen Jones in my constituency had a child with a mental health crisis that required in-patient treatment. The child was moved to Stoke-on-Trent, 70 miles away, because there are no child in-patient beds available in the whole of Derbyshire. The isolation that Stephen’s child experienced exacerbated their problems and made it harder for the family to support them. I stress to my Front-Bench colleagues that, while we realise that specialist staff will not be based in every single village and town, we need to give real consideration to providing those specialist services close enough that families can easily play their part in supporting patients, particularly children, in their treatment and recovery.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting focused on some of the causes of the mental health crisis. The Government are quick to talk about the increased amounts they are spending, but they are forced to spend more because there are more and more patients coming forward. If we had a huge expansion in the number of people with cancer, we would have to increase the number of cancer doctors, and yet we have far more people with mental health crises. The Government need to stop for a minute and think about the role they have played in causing that increase.
From the start in 2010, the Government’s pursuit of people on benefits, their targeting of the unemployed and the mentally ill, their approach to work capability assessments and the reduction in housing benefit, leading  to record levels of poverty and homelessness, have all played a part in increasing the pressures on people and have in themselves added to the mental health crisis. No one is suggesting that those are the only causes—of course, very successful people can have mental health crises, too—but the Government should take that expansion in the numbers seriously.
The pressures on children in that period have exacerbated the problems. Between 2017 and 2022 alone, the number of children aged between seven and 16 with a probable mental health disorder rose from 12% to 18%. Shockingly, among those aged between 17 and 19, the figure more than doubled, from 10% to 25.7%.
Finally, let me turn to the Government’s disappointing, inadequate and defensive amendment to the motion. It says everything about their complacency and lack of ideas that they should try to convince the House that they have already acted to reduce A&E stays. Last year in Chesterfield alone, people suffering a mental health crisis spent 5,254 hours in A&E. It is clear from the debate that our nation’s mental health patients are being let down and the Government have neither the wit nor the will to fix it. I am pleased that Labour will prioritise this crucial area of health and I endorse the motion.

Vicky Ford: As you and my hon. Friend the Minister are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been a tragic, historic issue of in-patient mental health deaths in Essex—it goes back to 2000—over a 20-year period. Roughly 2,000 people have lost their lives. An inquiry has been going on, but, as I said in the House in January, there has been deep concern about the lack of progress and the low level of engagement between Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust and the inquiry. I also pointed out that families who have lost loved ones want to know that lessons have been learned, they want accountability, and, most important, they want to know that patients are not suffering the same today.
At the time, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), said that unless there was a
“quantum leap in the level of co-operation”—[Official Report, 31 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 51WH.]
with the inquiry, it would move to a statutory basis. I know that the Secretary of State treats the matter seriously—he met Essex MPs recently and is close to making a decision—but it has now been four months since that debate, so may we please have a decision soon?
In the meantime, I recently met EPUT to find out what is happening with its service. I will tell some positive stories. In March, EPUT announced that it was going to launch a mental health urgent care unit in Basildon. We have all heard stories of people in mental health crisis going to A&E, waiting hours and hours, and then not getting the specialist service that they need, but that new specialist 24/7 centre saw 200 people in its first month. Instead of what happened historically in A&E—90% of people waiting a long time before being sent home without a care plan—90% of people see the experts within four hours and leave with a care plan. That is transformational. The unit is also piloting a 24-hour paramedic.
Demand in Essex is settling down. It rushed through the roof during covid but is now increasing in line with population growth. Complexity also rose during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, about 30% of those going into in-patient units needed to be detained. At the peak of the pandemic and post pandemic, that figure was 70%. It is now down to 60%. Our waiting time to see a psychologist, which rose to a year, is now down to 29 weeks. Vacancies for all positions have been filled, so the trust will be fully staffed from September and expects the waiting list to drop to zero.
Furthermore, EPUT is trying new technologies such as the new and innovative neuromodulation centre, which opened six months ago in Brentwood and is having great success. The trust is also encouraged by the Government’s announcements on electronic patient records. Enabling hospitals and mental health services to share patient records easily between them will make a huge difference. It is great news that the Government are behind that, but we need the funding for it.
Colleagues have mentioned eating disorders. Some may be aware that I suffered from anorexia when I was a teenager. It is still very difficult to talk about one’s own mental health. I encourage everyone in the Chamber to please be mindful of the language that they use; I have found some of the language used so far in the debate very upsetting. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) about being mindful of the tone that we use, because there will be people watching who are suffering with mental ill health, and we must not scare them away from getting treatment.
I am particularly concerned that what is being seen on social media today fuels eating disorders. The speed at which young girls in particular are shown eating-disorder content on social media by platforms such as TikTok is outrageous. I am glad that the Government are tackling that.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention social media, particularly in relation to teenage girls and eating disorders. I praise her for bringing her own experience to the Chamber. Another major contributor to the rise in mental ill health among young people in the last decade has been the isolation that social media can cause through bullying and so on.

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend is completely right about online bullying. It is so important therefore that we get the Online Safety Bill through—it must not be delayed too much, although there are still issues to be looked at in the Lords.
I am very pleased that Ministers have announced that they will criminalise the intentional encouragement of serious self-harm, including eating disorders. I would like them to look again at the toggle on/toggle off issue that I mentioned last time we debated this, and—on another issue that is having an impact on children—to take seriously the need to prevent children from accessing online pornography, which is of an increasingly violent nature. Those matters are all related to the mental health of the nation.

Kim Leadbeater: “We should be frank. We have not done enough to end the stigma of mental health. We have focused a lot on physical health and we haven’t as a country focused enough on mental health.”
Those are not my words, although I agree with them wholeheartedly. They were spoken in 2016 by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. He went on to say that if we
“intervene much earlier with those suffering from poor mental health…we can stop problems escalating… By breaking the mental health taboo, by working with businesses and charities…I believe we can lead a revolution in mental health treatment in Britain.”
Yes, yes and yes. My question is: why, seven-and-a-half years and four Tory Prime Ministers later, are we still waiting? Mr Cameron has long departed these Benches. This is not the occasion to lament the mess that he left behind, but the experience in my constituency—and, I respectfully suggest, in the constituencies of many, if not all, hon. Members—is that the Government’s approach to mental health remains, all these years later, wholly inadequate.
We have heard a lot of statistics in the debate. The numbers matter, because they show the overwhelming scale of the problem that we are facing. Every one of those numbers is an individual, and around them is a network of family and friends whose lives are impacted day in, day out by the very real challenges of confronting mental illness. I have met many such individuals and families in my constituency. Just last week, I hosted a roundtable at which I heard heartbreaking stories of such daily struggles, many of which involve children and young people.
Amelia is now 16. She was diagnosed with autism at the age of seven. For the past nine years, her mum, Anna, and her family have been trying to get help and support, and they are on their knees with exhaustion. Amelia has attempted to take her own life several times, and has been so let down by the system that she says that she just does not trust it anymore. It feels to her that she only gets any kind of support when there is an absolute crisis. I believe that, if she had got the support that she needed a long time ago, she and her family would be in a much better place today.
Eli is 10. He has been diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. He has various tics affecting his eyes, face, neck, back, hands and feet. He is a fantastic young man, but he is regularly in pain, which affects his ability to cope with days at school and has a huge effect on his mental health. Until recently, he was told that he just had conjunctivitis. His mum, Natalie, told me that she has struggled to find the psychiatric support Eli needs, and every time she calls CAMHS she is passed from person to person. She has been told that there are no NICE guidelines on Tourette’s and the best they have been offered to date has been worry management.
Those are just two examples, but they reflect a much bigger problem across society and in all our communities. I have meetings regularly with teachers across Batley and Spen, but we spend far more time discussing the mental health needs of their pupils and their families than we do the many other challenges faced in education—another sector that is underfunded and under-resourced. We cannot keep pushing this issue back on schools. Teachers do an amazing job, but we cannot expect them  to take on responsibility for what is a widespread societal health issue because of more than a decade of lack of focus and national leadership on mental health.
It is not just teachers. Because we do not have the mental health experts and provision that we need in the places where we need them, it falls to others in the community to pick up the pieces. In Batley and Spen, I am incredibly proud of the many voluntary organisations, sports clubs and charities that do a magnificent job week in and week out under huge pressure. I pay tribute to groups such as Andy’s Man Club, Game Changerz, Blue Tulips, Team Daniel and Luke’s Lads, but the voluntary sector is propping up the NHS and society as a whole. That is not sustainable and it is simply not right. We would not expect teachers, sports coaches, voluntary groups and others to deal with a burst appendix, a broken leg or an ear infection, so why are we asking them to deal with the mental health crisis? They are, of course, part of a wider, holistic solution, but they should not be the only solution. That is not the parity of esteem between mental health and physical health that David Cameron spoke of. While I am hugely optimistic about the excellent plans Labour has to address the mental health crisis, people such as Natalie, Eli, Anna and Amelia cannot wait any longer, which is why today’s debate is so important.

Ben Spencer: As a now non-practising former consultant psychiatrist, I have a host of declarations I should make in terms of speaking in this debate. For the sake of brevity, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations as part of my work on the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee, which list them in full.
This is an important debate and I shall focus on two angles. One is the delivery of mental health care and treatment and the other is the framework for that. I want to celebrate today the rebuild of the Abraham Cowley unit in my constituency. It gets rid of the awful dormitories that have plagued mental health care and treatment for some time. They are now gone, and we will have a brand new, rebuilt mental hospital. In fact, tomorrow, I am going to the topping out ceremony on the site to see the progress in delivering that. It will make a huge difference to the delivery of mental health care.
I used to work as an in-patient consultant psychiatrist. When people come into hospital for in-patient psychiatric treatment, it is often at the most difficult times of their lives. It is critically important that our mental health estate is fit for purpose and is a therapeutic environment. For too long, the mental health hospital estate has been the second cousin to acute physical health care and I am delighted that we are driving change forward in my patch. If people need in-patient care and treatment, they will get it in a new hospital that is fit for purpose. I just want to celebrate that and thank everyone who has been involved in getting it over the line, as well as all the people who work in that sector, including those who are looking after the patients who would have been in the old hospital, which is now a building site, and going through a stressful period of transition while the new hospital is set up.
My second point is about the draft Mental Health Bill. A few years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, suggested that we should review the legal framework we use when we treat people who are unable to consent or do not consent to treatment. Around every 20 years or so, we go through this process. We should be proud as a country that we have always been at the forefront of driving forward legislation and legal frameworks for dealing with people who cannot consent to treatment, the law of best interests and capacity. I was fortunate to be a panel member of the Simon Wessely review. I did that as part of my previous academic life, so Members can imagine my pride and delight in being part of the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill.
I am slightly saddened by the debate today, because mental health—especially the frameworks we use to treat people who are severely unwell—needs to be above party politics. We are discussing the most invasive thing we do in medicine—detaining and treating people in hospital, sometimes for a substantial time. We need to think carefully about the right balance between choice, freedom and autonomy and making sure that people get the care that they need at the right time and under the right framework. I am glad that the Government have done pre-legislative scrutiny and we have worked on a cross-party basis to get this issue over the line. I hope that we will see the mental health Bill very soon.
My final point is about psychosis. The Government’s amendment mentions the treatment of psychosis, which I know is often missed out in these debates and when people talk about mental health. Psychosis is one of the most disabling mental disorders and far and away the most costly and impactful, because it can affect people when they are quite young—

Vicky Ford: It is incredibly helpful to have my hon. Friend’s detailed experience in this debate. Why does psychosis get missed out?

Ben Spencer: It is simply because of advocacy; the conditions debated tend to be mental health conditions for which people can advocate. We talk a lot about dementia, and the children of those suffering tend to advocate for them. For CAMHS, it is the parents who advocate. For common mental disorder, people are able to advocate for themselves, but psychosis can be—I do not want to make a broad generalisation—disabling and isolating, and can limit people’s ability to advocate for themselves. From my research, I know that psychosis can break down family relations and alienate people. I am nervous about broad generalisations, and for the most part people can get better and do very well, but in some cases psychosis can be very disabling and limit advocacy.

Daisy Cooper: I welcome this debate because, like every other Member, my inbox is often full of cries for help from people who are suffering mental ill health or from family and friends trying to help them. Looking through recent cases I have had in St Albans, I see a litany of problems with the system. Many constituents have told me that they have had to wait for more than a year for diagnosis. Some have  needed an urgent medication review. One parent told me they feared for their and their child’s safety while the child was on a particular medication. They sought an urgent medication review, had an urgent referral from their GP, but the matter then sat with the psychiatrist for weeks and weeks. They were terrified during that time, waiting for a decision.
Other constituents have told me of their relief when they finally secured a mental health care package, only to find that it takes many weeks or months before the package can be put in place in practice. Those who have mental ill health and are also neurodiverse or have learning difficulties have told me about the hoops that they have to jump through. In some cases they have been told, “We can offer you mental health support, but it is not tailored or suitable for you because of your neurodiversity or your learning difficulties.” I have heard about the frustration that those individuals feel because those services are not tailored to them as a person.
Then we have the emergency A&E admissions. Again, just a couple of weeks ago, I had a parent email me in total desperation from a hospital corridor because one of their children had attempted suicide and had been rushed to A&E. They were not safe to be left unsupervised, but they were supervised by somebody who was inappropriate to supervise them. The family were desperate to get their child to a safe place, but that did not happen for days and days—it was only with my intervention that it happened. As I am sure many Members know, it is really pleasing to be able to make a difference in those cases, but it is worrying to think about all those families who have not got in contact—others out there who are struggling alone.
There are real problems with A&E pathways and with children’s mental health services. I hope that the Government will focus on those areas, but from speaking to my local mental health trust and hearing about the pressures that it is facing, is it really any wonder that we are having these issues? There were warnings at the start of the pandemic of an explosion of mental ill health, and I believe that the Government could have done a lot more to get ahead of that problem. For example, my local mental health trust has told me that there is not only an increased number of people looking for help but higher acuity. Therefore, instead of having a 2:1 staff-patient ratio, it often has to be 3:1. So even with the same staff headcount, there is less staff time for more people seeking help.
Those who work for the trust tell me of their frustration that the waiting lists are getting too long. They accept that medication reviews are often delayed because of staffing and resourcing issues, and there are huge pressures on the trust’s budget. Not only is there the demand; there is the cost of out-of-area placements, having to pay for private beds where none are available in the NHS, and paying for agency staff to cover vacancies that are not filled. Our mental health trust in Hertfordshire is the smallest bedded mental health trust in the country. We have huge ambition to open a new bed unit in the west part of the county, but we need the Government and the NHS to get behind that ambition.
So what do we need to see? We need to see prevention, and we need to see it early. Research from New Zealand, which is often cited here in the UK, indicates that three in four people with mental health problems show symptoms  before the age of 25. That reinforces the need for prevention and the need to see it early, so I would like there to be a qualified practitioner in every single school. We need mental health community hubs in every community. We need to empower the charity sector—a sector that has barely been mentioned today. In St Albans, we have Time To Talk, Youth Talk and the OLLIE Foundation, which are all fantastic mental health charities that are working on tiny budgets. In Hertfordshire, we need support for mental health beds and, of course, we need to tackle the workforce problem. Until the Government publish their workforce plan, the lack of a workforce remains the biggest risk to service delivery in mental health in every single part of the country. I urge the Government to take action on those points.

Miriam Cates: It is well reported that mental health difficulties have become both more prevalent and more talked about in recent years. Lockdown has certainly had a detrimental impact on the mental health of the nation, which is completely unsurprising. Isolation and loneliness are significant contributors to poor mental health. We have also had the economic consequences of inflation putting pressure on people’s personal finances, and the consequences of the NHS backlogs that have been referred to in this debate, but I particularly want to focus on children’s mental health.
As has already been mentioned by other hon. Members, we have had a rise in diagnosable mental health conditions among children since before lockdown. We have gone from about one in nine children having potentially diagnosable mental health conditions to one in six. I am sure we have all had cases in our constituencies—tragic stories of children who no longer leave home because they are too anxious, who are not able to go to school. We have seen a rise in the number of ghost children, many of whom are not turning up at school because of anxiety and mental health issues.
The Opposition have talked a lot about all the money that needs to be spent. The Government are spending money, boosting mental health spending by at least £2.3 billion by 2024. The motion calls for improved outcomes for people with mental health needs. We all want that, but prevention is better than cure, and it is simply not sufficient to call for ever more money to expand remedial capacity without addressing the root cause of the problem. It is a bit like having a leaky roof and calling for ever larger buckets to catch the drips: we need to fix the roof. Many will cite poverty, poor housing and not enough youth services as the causes. All are contributing factors, I have no doubt, but there are two less well understood, less talked about, and potentially more significant factors contributing to poor child mental health.
The first, which has been mentioned already, is the clear correlation between the rise of smartphones and social media and deteriorating mental health in young people. The extent of online harms cannot be overstated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned pornography. Violent pornography is now routinely encountered by children on the internet, with 1.3 million visits a month by UK children to adult sites. There is also eating disorder and suicide content—again, as my right hon. Friend so articulately mentioned   —and child sexual abuse material and exploitation. Anxiety issues are compounded by social media platforms. Children stay up all night waiting for likes on their social media profiles. There is clearly a relationship between more time spent on screens and less outdoor activity, which is another good indicator for poor mental health.
There seems to be a relationship between children spending more hours on social media and worse mental health. The Online Safety Bill, which is going through the other place at the moment, will deal with some of those issues, but I urge Ministers to encourage their colleagues in Government to accept some of the amendments that their lordships have tabled to strengthen the age verification provisions, to make it absolutely watertight that children cannot access some of the worst of those harms. However, we urgently need some proper research into whether it is safe for teens to have smartphones or to go on social media at all. Some have said that their smartphones are as addictive as cigarettes—that they are the opiate trade of the 21st century. I applaud the campaign group UsforThem and its “Safe Screens for Teens” campaign, which is calling for proper research into the health impact of smartphones on teens and whether, like tobacco and alcohol, it is necessary for there to be a legal age limit for accessing some of these platforms, or indeed having a smartphone at all.
A second, under-discussed contributing factor to poor child mental health is family breakdown. We are not talking about a small number of children affected: the UK has the highest rate of family breakdown in the OECD and in the western world. Some 44% of our children will not spend their childhood living with both of their biological parents. There is not enough recent data on this issue, but Office for National Statistics studies from 2010 suggest that back then, 3 million children did not live with their father and 1 million had no meaningful contact with their father. Given those figures, a mental health crisis among children and young people is absolutely no surprise.
Of course, family breakdown leads to other factors that contribute to poor mental health, such as poverty and low income. Some 80% of single-parent households are on universal credit, I think. That is no surprise at all, as there is only one adult in the house to fulfil all the roles and responsibilities of a parent. It puts pressure on housing costs, as one adult is supporting the household—of course there are going to be pressures on housing costs. Single parents are absolute heroes, and I take my hat off to them. Being a parent is an incredibly difficult job when there are two adults in the house. Single parents are heroes, but few would say that it is an ideal situation.
Family breakdown is far worse for the poor, which of course is closely linked to marriage rates. Married relationships are statistically less likely to break down than cohabiting ones, and marriage rates have remained very high in high-income groups, but have collapsed in low-income groups.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time.

Lyn Brown: Can I tell Members on the Government Benches a little bit about the mental health crisis in Newham? We have a rocketing population that is young, with no commitment from this Government  that health funding will rise to match it. We have almost 41,000 children living in poverty. We have the highest proportion in the country of people living in damp, mouldy, overcrowded temporary accommodation. All of these people have no sense of security in their home at all: they do not know when their local ties will be shattered yet again by a forced move.
As we know, all of this impacts on mental health, and particularly on the mental health of children. I see that constantly in my casework, and local health leaders tell me exactly the same thing. It can hardly be a surprise to the Government that the number of young people being referred to mental health services is 30% up in Newham alone. Cases are increasingly more complex, more urgent and more in danger of spiralling into deep crisis.
Newham is the most diverse borough in the country, with the second highest rate of GP registrations by migrants. Our diversity has massive benefits, and I love it, but it requires clinicians to adapt their way of caring for people with different cultural backgrounds and languages. Despite all that, Newham’s mental health spend is the lowest in London. With all those challenges, our clinicians and our health leaders are obviously struggling to meet their targets. Average waits in Newham between referral, assessment and treatment were at 12 weeks in 2021. Some patients are waiting for as long as a year, and that is after they have had a referral, which as we know is terribly difficult to access.
Our local mental health unit, which deals with only the most severe needs, is at 98% occupancy—far in excess of the clinical standard. Quality of care and patient care and safety are suffering. There is a dire shortage of specialist mental health beds for our older adults. We have older people waiting for long periods on utterly inappropriate wards and in beds that are no doubt sorely needed for those waiting for other hospital treatments. Many patients with mental health crises are waiting in emergency departments for more than 12 hours, and local health leaders are worried that those numbers will increase. Our mental health services are struggling even to react to some of the most dire situations, let alone being able to offer proactive support that prevents mental illnesses getting worse.
We are creating even more problems—greater problems for the future, greater costs for the Government, greater costs for the NHS, more antisocial behaviour, more homelessness and rough sleeping, and massive wasted economic and social potential. People’s lives are being devastated by treatable ill health and completely avoidable misery. If we are not sitting in this place to avoid that, why are we here?
Labour’s plan to transform mental health treatment is desperately needed in Newham, along with thousands more mental health staff and professionals in every school and accessible mental health hubs in every community. We sorely need a preventive approach so that we can bring this crisis to an end, and we need it now. Can I use my last 30 seconds to look at the Minister and ask whether she will meet me and my health providers and health leaders in Newham to talk about the massive underfunding that our borough and my community face?

Aaron Bell: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate, given the expertise and experience we have heard from  all parts of the Chamber so far. I draw particular attention to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is no longer in his place but who shared his personal expertise as a clinician, and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who kicked off the Back-Bench speeches from the Government Benches. He made a well-constructed speech that spoke to his expertise in campaigning for mental health so assiduously in this place. I pay tribute to everyone on both sides of the Chamber who has brought forward their own personal experience, their family experiences and their constituency experiences of mental health.
I will not reiterate everything that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said, but the parity of esteem we are working towards in this country is vital, as are the record investment of £2.3 billion that this Government have put into mental health and the extra doctors and nurses who will support people. Most of all, it is about reducing stigma in mental health. It is not unfortunate that we are doing so, but it does create more demand.
The shadow Minister said that the causes of poor mental health were complex, and they are, but she then went on to basically try to lay it all at the door of the Government. That is not remotely fair or accurate, because the statistics are complex too. We should welcome more demand from people who were previously undiagnosed, and we should recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) did a moment ago, that there have been societal changes, particularly with social media, which I referred to in my intervention.
At the very youngest ages, we are seeing an explosion in autism cases. I speak to the excellent Peter Pan Centre in my constituency, which deals with pre-school children with some of the most severe forms of autism, including those who are non-verbal. Next door is the excellent Merryfields special school, where a number of them end up going. Increasingly, those organisations are saying that the majority of their pupils are those with autism or autism spectrum disorder, and that simply was not the case 10 years ago. Again, that is probably because of better diagnosis—we do not fully understand the explosion in autism—but we must not assume that everything is to do with money being spent on things; it is to do with better understanding of mental health, more awareness and less stigma.
The pandemic affected the mental health of the entire nation, and I recognise that that has put a lot of pressure on young people in schools and universities, which I will talk briefly about as the Member who represents Keele University. On schools, I speak frequently with my heads and with parents who come to me trying to get statements for their kids. As we get a greater understanding of neurodiversity, there is obviously a real interaction between special educational needs and poor mental health. I was speaking to my county council yesterday, and the big issue is the availability of educational psychologists. My county council, Staffordshire, is doing a great job of training more of them itself, but that is a problem across the country, and we need to address it so that we can get children the help that they need with their education and their mental health earlier.
We have heard about the Department for Education funding and the training of senior mental health leads, with 400 already supporting more than 3 million children. There will be up to 500 next year, and more than 60% of state secondaries have a mental health lead. I want to see that get to 100% as soon as possible.
In my final couple of minutes, I will speak a little about universities, as the Member who represents Keele, which has 12,500 students. I am pleased that Keele has, as many universities do, a professional counselling and mental health team to support its students. More generally, the Higher Education Statistics Agency collects data from students on any disability that they have, including mental health conditions. In 2021-22, 416,000 UK students said they had a disability of some kind—that is 19% of UK students—and within that, 119,500 said they had a mental health condition, which is 5.5% of all UK students. That number is three and a half times higher than it was in 2014-15. Higher rates are found among women, undergraduates, full-time students and those in their second or later years. There is an issue here that we have to address, and I am pleased that the Government are doing so.
The covid pandemic fell heavily on students at university, particularly during the lockdowns and associated restrictions. At the height of the pandemic, many students, including those at Keele, struggled with the measures employed to prevent the spread of covid, particularly in university settings. Some had to socially isolate regularly and could not go home to see their parents. They were essentially locked in their room with nobody else there for a long time. Nightline, which co-ordinates student-run listening and information services, reported in November 2022 that it had recorded a 51% increase in calls in 2020-21. Numbers for the next year were 30% higher than that, which indicates that the pandemic has had a continuing effect on universities. I welcome that the Department for Education has asked the Office for Students to distribute £15 million for transition into university.
I am pleased with everything that the Minister said about what we are doing, and I end on the point that there is less stigma, which is a good thing, and if there are more people coming forward, that is a good thing too.

Debbie Abrahams: As we have heard from colleagues from all parts of the Chamber, we are in a mental health crisis. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly endemic. I pay tribute to the work of our offices, including my own team, who regularly deal with critical cases of mental ill health, including suicide calls, for which we have had to put on special training. That was happening before the pandemic too, and we need to recognise that.
Recent figures show that seven out of 10 secondary school children are expressing mental health distress. That should worry us. It has already been mentioned, but we know that there are risk factors and risk conditions that can contribute to the onset of a mental health problem. I will speak about the importance of early intervention a little later.
Oldham has the 37th highest prevalence of mental health disorders in the country. That puts it in the highest 20% in the UK; for reference, the Prime Minister’s  constituency is in the lowest 6%. On the other side of the coin to this higher prevalence is our reduced funding. Research from the Children’s Commissioner found that child and adolescent mental health services in Oldham received over £100 less in spending per child from the Government than those on the Isle of Wight. Similarly, in 2019 The Guardian reported that London had nearly double the number of psychiatrists in the north of England. As I have mentioned, it is true that things have got worse since the pandemic, but that is not just a consequence of the pandemic.
I want to focus on what needs to happen, because we need a serious plan, and I am not from the Minister’s speech that the Government recognise that. The Opposition want to recruit thousands of new mental health professionals, which will go some way to addressing the lack of parity of esteem between mental and physical health services. That needs to be reflected in the Government’s NHS workforce plan. We have waited ages for the Government to produce that and it makes the partygate report look quite prompt. As the Government sit on their hands and fail to produce a plan, the crisis continues to get worse. That is why we will commit to the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in history. We must also look at the metrics we use. For example, we would guarantee treatment within a month. That would make such a big difference to all those people stuck on what feel like endless waiting lists in Oldham, Saddleworth and across the country.
Finally, I am pleased to see our party committing to a paradigm shift from the medical to the social model of health, focusing on prevention in communities as well as treatment. The Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to that in Labour’s health mission, and we have also pledged that there will be a mental health hub in every community. We will go further than that: our commitment to addressing the rampant health inequalities across our country includes tackling the inequity in mental health. As we develop national policy from education to transport and finance, we will consider the impacts on health and health inequalities, including mental health. This is the difference a Labour Government will make. The next Labour Government have a plan that is both radical and credible, and for my constituency and for our country, it is long overdue.

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware, because you have chaired many of the debates, that there has been a campaign in this House for over a year to stop SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—which are used by very rich men to oppress free speech in this country. Just in the last hour or so, the High Court has ruled one of those SLAPPs cases out of order: the case of Mr Mohamed Amersi against the ex-Member of this House Charlotte Leslie has been struck down. In my view, that is a great victory for free speech. Because it is so important, I give notice that I will be raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It of course needs no comment from the Chair, except to say that I think the whole House will agree with him that this is a good judgment and an important step forward. I do indeed recall chairing many debates on the matter,  and I am sure the whole House will look forward to his raising it on the Adjournment. We will recommence the debate with Danny Kruger.

Danny Kruger: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a great champion of this cause. I am very proud to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence, which, after this debate, I am going to ask her to co-chair with me.
I want to call the House’s attention and that of Hansard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The distressing and powerful story he told of a constituent of his will remain with me as a terrible example of the state of so many of our constituents and of mental health services that do not work properly.
I welcome this debate, and I am afraid to say that I do recognise many of the descriptions given by Members on both sides. I want to call attention to the excellent services provided in my constituency of Devizes by the Green Lane Hospital, a mental health hospital that has been there for many years. However, even there we have many cases of constituents feeling that they have been let down and of genuine difficulty in accessing the services that are needed in time. Despite the good efforts made from the top of the system to the bottom, we simply are not doing well enough, so I welcome the debate, and I recognise the general point being made.
Of course, I agree with the argument put forward by the Opposition that we need more mental health services. The question is what those services should be, how they are organised and, indeed, whether we should use services as the frame for this whole debate. I wonder whether  the term “services and relationships” would be more appropriate, and Members have mentioned the primacy of relationships. The fact is that we do not fully understand all the neurological origins of mental health conditions, but we do know that they are exacerbated by social circumstances, and that while medical treatment can help, what really helps is good relationships.
I know this from my own experience. For many years, I ran a project working in prisons and with ex-offenders, and we saw so clearly that, while of course the official and the essential responsibility for crime and criminality rests with the individual, it is usually relationships and relational skills or the lack of them that lead somebody into crime and into prison, and it is relationships and relational capacity and skills that help people to get out of an offending lifestyle. We also know this very well from all the evidence in studies of addiction, which is very closely correlated to mental health.
What do we do? There is consensus that we need more services and better services, but my concern is that we will end up focusing the system’s efforts on quantifiable measures or quantifiable inputs—most of all, the prescription of pills and pharmaceutical treatments—so we will end up medicalising mental health, just as we medicalise so much physical health. I chair the APPG on prescribed drug dependence, as I have mentioned. The research that the APPG has supported, particularly by Dr James Davies of Oxford University, shows that a fifth of adults are on antidepressants, many of them because they cannot get off these pills, even though they  are only supposed to be prescribed for a certain time. We spend £500 million a year on prescriptions for medication that people should not be on, according to the guidance for those pills.
I worry about the trend towards the medicalisation of mental health, and I particularly worry about the Government’s major conditions strategy, which I welcome. We cannot have a focus just on pharmaceuticals; we have to make it much wider. It should not just be about services, but about the relationships that support good mental health. I am pleased there is a strategy on mental health and there does need to be top-down action, but I would like it also to focus on undoing this over-medicalised model. We need more training for GPs to understand the social relationships at the heart of mental health, including how to support people who have acute conditions. We need more funding for social prescribing—that has been mentioned—which is a tremendous initiative. We need support for withdrawal services and a helpline for people who are addicted to prescribed drugs.
Overall, however, we need a bottom-up approach. I respect Labour’s plan for more access hubs for mental health, more school mental health workers and more staff, but really we need system reform. The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) mentioned the community mental health approach, and I like that phrase, but I think it includes much more than just more hubs and more staff. We need a whole system reform that prioritises the civil society organisations, families and community groups that have such a powerful role to play in supporting people with mental health.
Lastly, I draw attention to the new developing model called outcomes partnerships, whereby the public sector pays for results—not for inputs and not even for outputs, but for actual demonstrable improvement, whether it is in healthcare or mental health. It brings together all the different providers from civil society, the public sector and, indeed, businesses—we have mentioned the importance of workplace training—so that we get all the different players involved in a person’s life, and so that the funding is more local and can be used on the preventive agenda, which is so important. Rather than just trying to pour more money into the top of the NHS and thinking that is going to work, we need to fund it from the bottom up.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I need to reduce the time limit to four minutes with immediate effect.

Alex Sobel: I want to highlight the crisis faced by families dealing with mental health issues, particularly those with children.
The crisis has been brought to my attention by many constituents over the time I have been an MP, but today I would like to raise the issue of my constituent Stephanie, whose son is autistic, non-verbal, and has complex developmental and communication delays. Stephanie knew that her son needed an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis from an early age, but was told that he could not be diagnosed until he was seven. When her  son did receive a diagnosis, Stephanie was told by the doctor that it was obvious how much he was struggling to cope with his life due to his ADHD. He is suffering from elevated levels of distress and unable to sleep through the night due to his inability to sit still for long.
Sadly, Stephanie was informed that there would be an 18 to 24-month wait for the community service MindMate to sign off the diagnosis and to be referred to child and adolescent mental health services, along with the medication plan. The CAMHS wait would mean a further 18 to 24 months to receive medication, so if they hit the longest waiting times at both services, her son would have been told that he needed medication at the age of seven and only receive his prescription at 11. Long wait times for diagnosis and medication mean that families across the country are turning for help to charities and support groups such as ZigZag, a Leeds autism support group based in my constituency that offers essential advice and support to thousands of families across Leeds. Stephanie has expressed her concerns and garnered support from other families with similar experiences.
The situation is at crisis point and requires immediate attention from the Government. We cannot ignore the struggles faced by families across the country dealing with the complexities of mental health issues. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens have access to prompt and proper care. Those issues are just the start. For instance, Leeds University reports that it has seen an about 60% increase in demand for mental health services and that the issues are a lot more complex than they were before covid. It says that many students are arriving at university with anxiety and mental health issues as the support they needed in their formative years was simply not available. Huge pressure is being built up, like a dam that is going to burst.
Adult ADHD services in Leeds currently have 3,300 people on their diagnostic waiting list—that does not include all the people who cannot be bothered to see their GP because of the length of the waiting list—and they are receiving more than 170 referrals a month, which far exceeds their capacity. The waiting list is currently upwards of three years, with an added wait for medication after having received a diagnosis. Similarly, the adult autism diagnostic service in Leeds currently receives more than 100 referrals a month, but it has the resources to complete only 40 assessments a month.
The current situation is completely unacceptable. We need the Government to create a more effective and efficient mental health care system that is responsive to the needs of communities. We cannot continue to let down families like Stephanie’s at every turn. It is crucial that we invest in the mental health sector and prioritise the wellbeing of all our young people.

Olivia Blake: As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders—an issue that I will raise in my speech—I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her bravery in sharing her experience.
The statistics on the crisis in the NHS, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and others, speak for themselves. The 5.4 million hours that people with mental health problems are waiting in  A&E is a scandal. We know that the longer patients wait for treatment, the worse and more dangerous their conditions can become. While I would love to make this speech about the importance of prevention, unfortunately we see a crisis in the NHS, so I will focus on the issues of acuity mentioned by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). Many of those who cannot access the mental health care that they need are children. A quarter of 17 to 19-year-olds have a probable mental illness. Nearly one in 10 seven to 16-year-olds and a third of 17 to 24-year-olds have tried to self-harm. My own NHS South Yorkshire integrated care board has a waiting list of 10,015 children.
If those figures were not horrific enough, I want to talk about one further horrifying effect: that of people with eating disorders—often children or young people—having to wait to be given a tier 4 bed in a specialist ward owing to the acuity of their condition and because of the lack of preventive care available. Last year, a parent wrote to tell me that they were struggling to secure a mental health bed for their child, who had been diagnosed with anorexia. They would have gone anywhere in the country to get their child seen given the care they received while they were waiting. They needed urgent in-patient mental healthcare, but no tier 4 beds were available, so they had to be admitted to a general ward instead.
When the parents first contacted me, their child was being restrained most days to be fed. They were worried that, without specialist support, repetitive restraint was only making things worse. I have since spoken to numerous eating disorder specialists, researchers and medical staff who have all told me about the rising number of children with eating disorders being restrained—often unnecessarily —by staff in general medical wards without training, recording or following guidance. I have heard more first-hand stories. I warn hon. Members that these are not nice experiences to relay, but they should be shouted from the rooftops because they are the human consequences of a system that is understaffed, under-resourced and under strain.
One person told me that, as a 17-year-old, they were restrained for feeding via a nasogastric tube three or four times a day by five people; that went on for about 10 months. Another person told me that they were restrained for daily NG feeds by five to six staff at a time for six months. Sometimes, they were held for an hour after the feed and would come out with bruises, despite their screams during the restraint. I have heard stories of 15-year-olds being restrained at 11 o’clock at night for NG feeding. To be clear, it is not just the people I have described who are suffering because they must wait for access to the care they need; it is also causing tension between psychiatric staff and medical staff on wards because these people are getting inappropriate care.
It is shameful that in such settings the use of restraint does not need to be recorded. Its use is heavily regulated in mental health settings for a reason. The use of restraint and restrictive practice is really consequential to the conditions that people go on to develop and their ability to recover. I am disappointed that in a letter and in response to me following a debate, the Minister refused to act and close the loophole. I ask her to think again about closing that loophole so that, no matter where a person is in the system, they have the same rights around restraint and that it gets recorded.

Paulette Hamilton: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I am an independent lay manager. Everywhere we look in Britain at the moment, public services are crumbling. Chronic neglect by the Conservative Government means that people across the UK can no longer trust that they will be able to access mental health services when they need them.
As a lay manager in Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, I often see the impact that dwindling services and limited resources have on residents across our city. In our local ICB area in December, nearly 3,000 children and almost 50,000 adults were on the mental health waiting list. In my constituency, parents have told me that their children are waiting a number of years for urgent mental health support.
Birmingham and Erdington are not unique cases. Since 2010, the Conservative Government have cut one in four mental health beds across the country as waiting times for treatment have soared. Currently, 400,000 children are waiting for mental health treatment across the UK. They are being denied the help that they need.
I am a mum and a grandmother. Like all parents, I want the next generation to have better opportunities than I did. That is why Labour’s plan to recruit thousands more mental health staff, guarantee treatment within a month and provide access to a mental health professional in every school is so important. It is inconceivable that the Government have failed to put forward their own plan to recruit mental health staff or even reduce the shocking waiting times that our constituents are having to put up with.
I worked in the NHS for 25 years and, like many of my colleagues, I despair at how it has been treated by the Government. This year will mark 75 years of our incredible NHS, but, over the last 13 years, the Conservatives have done all they can to wreck it. People suffering with their mental health cannot afford to wait any longer for the support that they need. We need serious government. We need a Labour Government to tackle the crisis now.

Holly Lynch: The Metropolitan police recently announced that it would stop attending mental health calls unless there was a risk to life. That has rightly generated much debate about the role of policing. However, it has not generated much debate so far on how, if we all believe in the right care, right person principles, we got into the position where the police are playing such a primary role, and where our mental health services are in that conversation. We know that the police are stretched. For all the Home Secretary’s talk of increased police numbers, the Government are only restoring the officers they have been cutting since 2010. Alongside those cuts, years of austerity have hammered other public services. West Yorkshire police tell me that mental health-related demand increased by 60% between 2012 and 2022. We have allowed policing to become the one-stop-shop that we ask to pick up the pieces when everything else falls apart. Mental health practitioners are also undeniably stretched, but mental health specialists are the right people to provide mental health support, especially when somebody is in crisis.
I am in no doubt that the police will have tried various other ways of encouraging their colleagues in mental health trusts to recognise the leadership role they are required to play in the response to a mental health issue. I know that because I also spend a great deal of time locally in Halifax trying to do the same, and secure specialist support for people who need serious and urgent help. When someone is in real distress with their mental health or approaching a crisis, too often West Yorkshire police, Calderdale Council, charities and other partners—even the hospital trust—work together with my team and I to do what we can. Yet I am afraid that too often it has proved incredibly difficult to bring qualified mental health specialists into the team to even be a part of the conversation. That results in the wrong care for people at their most vulnerable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said, that is a false economy, because it falls to all the other services and partners to try to provide a degree of care that they are not qualified to provide. We should not criminalise people who are unwell out of necessity. The police are right to take a step back. The question is what will it take for mental health trusts and professionals to be able to step forward?
As our motion sets out, patients suffering with mental health issues waited more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency last year and we have nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment. If we are proactive about mental health, it will, as has been outlined, be cost-effective in the long term and we can prevent more people from being in a crisis situation. A Labour Government would recruit thousands of mental health staff to expand access to treatment, provide access to specialist mental health support in every school, establish open access mental health hubs for children and young people, and bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
I read the Government’s amendment to our motion. Does any MP who does their casework properly and is truly grounded in their constituency really recognise the picture it paints? The Government pat themselves on the back for hitting the target for interventions in psychosis. I checked what the target was. The standard is that 60% of people experiencing their first episode of psychosis will have access to a NICE-approved care package within two weeks of referral. We have all experienced supporting people in a psychotic episode. How long does it take to even get an assessment for that person to then hope that they are in the 60% of people who should get care within two weeks? It is not good enough. We need a Labour plan to deliver much more.

Emma Hardy: There has been a narrative about whether it is increasing numbers of people becoming more aware of mental health that has led to more cases being reported, or whether there are actually more people suffering from mental health problems. I spoke to Michele Moran, the head on this issue for the Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust. She told me, indisputably, that we  have more people suffering from mental health conditions. We only need look at the examples coming into each and every one of our surgeries to see how desperate the situation has become. Like other hon. Members, I would like to thank my staff for the work they do in supporting people with mental health problems. I will give two examples.
One example is a 13-year-old boy who has not been in school for two years. The school funded three counsellor sessions for him, but it cannot continue to give the boy the level of support he needs. This is a crucial point. Schools are very willing to help, but teachers are not mental health professionals. We need the professionals in the system, which is why Labour’s pledge to have professionals in schools matters so much. We all know how desperate the waiting list for CAMHS is and how difficult it is to get the level of support that is needed. We are left with families who are desperately struggling, having to rely on other family members and finding life incredibly difficult.
It is the same for another constituent with a 17-year-old daughter. She did not get the help she needed at the time she needed it. She could not access that primary care. What ended up happening was that she took an overdose, which she survived, but it was clear that her mental health was in such difficulties that she was sectioned. Her parents now find that only one of them is able to work, because the other parent has to be with their daughter at all times because of the difficulties she is facing. That is having a huge impact on their income and their standard of living.
In our area we have tried to do something different with the police. Right Care, Right Person is a joined-up approach from Humberside police, the clinical commissioning group—as it was at the time—local councils, mental health providers and hospitals to decide who is the right person to attend to someone in crisis, and then look at developments. It is not perfect, but it tries to address the difficulties we are having. Many of the cases the police have been sent to are still people actually struggling with their mental health, and the police, like teachers, are not the professionals always best placed to deal with someone in a mental health crisis. We are evaluating that as it goes along, but the demand for services is indisputable.
We need to take a step back a little and think about what is going on. We are talking about citizens advice bureaux providing counselling and support for people with mental health problems. The people that the citizens advice bureaux are supporting are not those who generally have mental health problems; they are people who do not have enough money to live, and their level of debt is causing them to have mental health problems. They are in a situation called negative budgeting, where, quite simply, the amount of money they have coming in is less than the amount of money going out. That is what is driving some mental health problems.
If we are to solve the mental health crisis, we must look at poverty, debt and the cost of living crisis. That is why I am so delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) said that a future Labour Government’s approach to mental health would be focused not just on health, but across the whole of Government. Until we have that joined-up approach, we will never really tackle the crisis our country faces.

Simon Lightwood: West Yorkshire has among the highest rates of mental health issues in the country, with 28,630 children and 63,755 adults on waiting lists alone. The statistics show that Wakefield, specifically, is above average, with one in three people suffering from mental illness. As we all know, some of the primary causes are poverty, debt, poor housing and long-term physical health problems. Indeed, Eastmoor in my constituency has the highest prevalence of mental health illness, as well as those cause factors, too.
I know from my casework that the number of mental health cases coming into my office has been rising steadily over the past year. With mental health provision at breaking point, that is no surprise: more than 5.4 million hours waiting in A&E in 2021-22 for mental health patients; 1.6 million people stuck on long waiting lists for mental health treatment; and nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment. On that last point about children, I am deeply concerned that Wakefield has the seventh-highest rate of under-18s under mental health care, with over 6,000 having contact with mental health services in the past year alone. Parents are left feeling helpless, watching their children’s mental health deteriorating as they linger on waiting lists for months, if not years, to access treatment.
Much of the problem is caused by the number of mental health nurses in the NHS now being lower than when Labour left office. It is unacceptable that people are left turning to A&E because of staff shortages in mental health. I have had cases where patients have been advised that they will have to wait a year for their treatment to start and such delays are becoming more common. Nearly 10,000 people in West Yorkshire had treatment closed without even receiving an appointment. After 13 years of the Tories running down our health services, we need a Labour Government that will guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it, recruit thousands of new mental health staff and ensure that mental health specialists are in every school. The scrapping by the Conservatives of the 10-year mental health plan shows a total lack of long-term focus on those with mental health needs. That is why Labour would bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
With mental health services on their knees, I will be voting for Labour’s motion, and I hope the Government will finally give this area the attention it so sorely needs.

Rachel Hopkins: The Conservative cost of living crisis is causing a mental health crisis. People living in poverty or, as we are increasingly seeing, under financial stress and in personal debt are more likely to develop mental illness, as so many hon. Friends have already said. Sadly, children from the poorest 20% of households are four times more likely to have serious mental health difficulties by age 11 than the wealthiest 20%, and after 13 years of Conservative Government our mental health services are at breaking point and patients are being failed. It is important that we talk about mental health in this place because it is a key issue. Like many other Members, I have constituents who are struggling to get the support  they and their children need; that is their lived experience and it is right that we hold the Government to account on it.
For children, recent research shows the average CAMHS waiting list in February rocketed by two thirds, and the 400,000 children on mental health waiting lists are waiting an average of 21 weeks for a first appointment. Data from December 2022 shows that children in a mental health crisis spent 7,034 hours in A&E in my Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area. That is in the context of our Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board area having over 15,000 children on mental health waiting lists. This is distressing for both the children and their families.
Turning to adults, Royal College of Psychiatrists research from last October found that 43% of adults with mental illness said that long waiting times had worsened their mental health: 23% had to wait more than 12 weeks to start treatment and many end up turning to A&E departments. Indeed, data from December 2022 shows that adults in the Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area, including the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital, spent over 11,000 hours in A&E.
It is right that I mention the many volunteers who operate in the mental health sphere. It is the end of Volunteers’ Week 2023 so I want to make that shout out, particularly to the brilliant volunteers with the Luton, South Beds and Harpenden Samaritans, who are committed to supporting people struggling to cope or struggling with their mental health through the listening service the Samaritans offers 24 hours a day. If anyone listening to this debate needs support, they should call 116 123 for free from any phone 24 hours a day.
Finally, I want to state my support for Labour’s community-focused preventive plan for mental health so that people will be guaranteed to be seen within one month, there will be 8,500 new mental health staff, with open access mental health hubs in each community and a mental health professional in every school. We need this bold plan; we need it now, and we need a Labour Government to deliver it.

Layla Moran: There is no doubt that our mental health system is broken. Like many other Members, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about the dire state of mental health services, and there is a story for every age and every system failure, but today I want to focus on young people, particularly students.
It will come as no surprise that the Mental Health Foundation found that 40% of students are not coping well with their anxiety. In Oxfordshire, a survey by The Tab in 2022 found a staggering 82% of students at Oxford Brookes University had self-medicated with drugs or alcohol to cope with mental health issues. Where students know that they cannot rely on the NHS, an added burden is put on university staff. Tutors increasingly find themselves acting as therapists or counsellors for their overburdened, ill or anxious students.
Oxford University is working hard to improve services. It has come up with a joint mental health committee and a more common approach across the colleges and departments. It deserves praise for that, but the students I have spoken to have made it clear that
“University wellbeing services are not and cannot be a substitute for adequate mental health care”
and those gaps have dire consequences when severe mental health issues are left untreated. My constituents Jacquie and Mark faced every parent’s worst nightmare when their son Rory reached crisis point. Rory was suffering from anxiety and depression and found no support after a year of absence. He tragically committed suicide at university at just 22. His parents told me that
“we can’t bring Rory back, but we can help other young people preparing to go to uni.”
They are calling for a statutory duty of care for universities, which would force them to take proactive steps and intervene where a student is clearly at risk of harm. It is just common sense. It already exists between employers and employees. All we are asking is for the same duty of care to apply to students.
But, as we all know, the problems in young people’s mental health services are not restricted to those at university. So many people tell me the system is broken: parents, teachers, educational psychologists and clinical psychologists all identify the same failings. One parent wrote to me:
“I am breaking my heart listening to my son saying horrible things about himself, threatening to take his life, and struggling with his mental health in general. Next year we would have been on the waiting list for four years and nothing will probably happen.”
That story is not unique.
So it is left to voluntary organisations and local authorities to step in where this Government are clearly failing. Oxfordshire Mind and Restore do incredible work. Last year, I visited The Abingdon Bridge, a fantastic charity that provides specialist support for 13 to 25-year-olds. When I visited, it had 50 young people on its waiting list, who had to wait up to 24 weeks for an assessment and a further 10 weeks for counselling. Shockingly, that is still much shorter than CAMHS, where the waiting list is between two and four years.
We know how to fix this; it is about more funding. A senior healthcare professional in Oxfordshire told me that
“every pound spent on a child’s mental health saves thousands in the future.”
It is this Government who are failing our young people and their parents. The Government are dragging their feet. Young people and their parents deserve so much better than this.

Marie Rimmer: Suicide is a tragedy: it is a tragedy for the person, their loved ones and their community. As we have heard in the debate, suicide affects people of all ages. However, I am going to focus on one group: men. For men under 50, suicide is the biggest killer—not cancer, not other physical illnesses, but suicide. Mental health matters so much and it should be on a par with physical health. The NHS is there to look after and care for us all. That is the basic principle it was founded on. With suicide being such a big killer, it is only right that more effort and resources go into treating poor mental health.
Each suicide cracks an irreparable hole in the lives of loved ones. They often ask themselves, “Could I have done more? How did I not spot any signs?” or even, “Did I contribute towards it?” This would not be the case for physical illness; instead they would rely on professional healthcare. That is why the same resources need to be in place to treat poor mental health. Yet instead this Government have scrapped their 10-year mental health plan, displaying yet again that they are not interested in long-term planning. If it does not give them an instant headline, it seems the Government lose interest.
Of course, society has a role to play. For too long, men struggling or even displaying emotion are told to “man up,” “stop being a wimp,” or even, more cruelly, to “grow a pair.” Those words may seem harmless at the time, but in reality they are dangerous and cause tremendous harm. No one knows what is going on in somebody else’s head. That again reinforces why a national strategy is so important, not only to offer better and more accessible mental health care but to help to shift societal attitudes. We all have a role to play. How we conduct ourselves towards others is very important. In everyday life, we have an impact on every person we come into contact with. Pre-emptive mental health care is a must. That is why Labour’s plan to prioritise mental health care in an open access hub is so important.
Businesses and employers also have a role to play. They have a duty to their employees’ mental health. Modern workplaces should have accessible mental first aid in the way that they have physical first aid. For any strategy to combat suicide to be successful, it needs to be a priority of national Government. We need professional mental health support requirements for employers and a plan to change attitudes in society, not just a plan to swat the flies with. We need a plan that is resourced and put into practice.
We should make it easier for men to talk at work, in the pub and, most importantly, with professionals. Labour’s plan to recruit thousands of mental health staff would put us on the right path of caring for our men. The Government need to and should do more to solve that crisis, and our Labour Government will resolve it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: In Greater Manchester, the number of children on waiting lists under the NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board is 23,510. The number of adults on waiting lists is 89,250, and the number of patients whose treatment was closed without receiving an appointment at all was 31,405. Those statistics represent people facing crisis, who desperately need help.
Like other Members of this House, I have heard many stories from constituents, including those waiting over a year for assessment and treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism or potential learning disabilities. Many have been forced, through desperation, to take out personal loans to pay for private assessments. Then, they have tried to privately fund their own treatment and medication. I have heard from constituents suffering with severe depression, waiting months for therapy and simply being told to ring 999 if it gets serious.
I have heard traumatic cases of teenagers battling serious mental health conditions who needed urgent help, with no bed available for them for hundreds of miles unless they chose to go on an adult ward, which I am sure for most children and young people would be an extremely frightening experience. I also hear the stories of our hard-working NHS mental health staff, who are overworked, overstretched, underpaid and at breaking point. So there is not a mere crisis in mental health; the service has effectively collapsed. Sadly, I fear for what is to come if the Government do not urgently act today.
Salford City Council estimated in 2021 that there would be between 36,537 and 40,902 additional diagnoses of anxiety and depression in Salford alone, equating to a point prevalence of between 14% and 15.8%. That was before the cost of living crisis hit. For those who reach crisis point, the outlook is equally frightening. An overstretched, underfunded ambulance service means that, often, the police are diverted to emergency mental health calls. That is why there was huge concern expressed recently in response to plans by the Metropolitan police to stop attending emergency mental health incidents.
More broadly, in addition to the chronic understaffing of mental health services, funding remains a huge issue. The Centre of Mental Health estimates that mental health conditions make up 28% of all referrals, but services receive only 13% of NHS funding. The Health Foundation found that the lack of funding meant that just four in 10 people seeking help would be able to receive it. The sad fact is that it makes no economic sense not to increase investment in the NHS and funding of NHS mental health services. As the Mental Health Foundation states:
“Poor mental health costs the UK a staggering £118 billion per year, but much of this is preventable.”
I welcome wholeheartedly the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and I will support it. The Government must recognise this crisis, properly fund our NHS mental health services, and properly recruit those staff and pay them the wages that they deserve.

Liz Twist: The Minister spoke earlier about what the Government have done for the mental health service, but we have all known for far too long that people in mental health crisis are not getting the support that they need urgently. They need swift, accessible and effective support and treatment. I am glad that we in Labour have a clear and thought-through plan to address this issue and suicide prevention.
I want to start with some figures. The shadow mental health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), has already touched on the national figures. The figures from my local trust in the north-east are also worrying. Just in the 2021-22 financial year, adults in mental health crisis spent more than 1,134 hours in A&E at Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, while children in crisis spent 180 hours there. The North East Ambulance Service received 3,622 emergency 999 calls from people in mental health crisis. NHS Digital figures for 2022 showed that, in the north-east and north Cumbria ICB alone, 31,345 children and 70,770 adults were on waiting lists, and 12,845 patients had  treatments closed without even receiving an appointment. Those staggering figures have been reflected nationally.
This morning, I met representatives from the charity YoungMinds, who told me that urgent referrals to CAMHS are the highest on record. Let us make no mistake: many of our young people are in acute crisis. Research by the charity shows that 43% of the young people turned down by CAMHS had experienced suicidal thoughts, psychosis or self-harm. As a result of having to wait so long, 26% had tried to take their own life.
In an intervention, I raised the concerns of mental health charities about the subsuming of the mental health strategy into the major conditions strategy. There is real concern that the voices heard in the mental health consultation will be lost and that a five-year major conditions strategy is too short to bring about the changes needed and to emphasise the cross-governmental work envisaged in the original plan.
As the Mental Health Foundation highlighted,
“public mental health has traditionally received extremely minimal funding”,
of an average of about 2% of the public health budget of local authorities. That has been accompanied by a cut of 26% in public health grants in real terms. The Mental Health Foundation notes that we cannot simply “treat our way” out of mental health problems. We know that they are formed by hard socioeconomic factors that the Government need to address, and that the poorest regions, such as mine in the north-east, see the highest number of suicides. The Government need to work on that.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, I have the pleasure of talking with many local organisations that have been formed by people who have personal experience of suicide. To name just one, James’ Place is a charity that offers professional support to men in acute suicidal crisis. It currently has centres in London and Liverpool, but I am delighted to say it will be opening a centre in the north-east, where, sadly, we have the worst suicide figures in the UK. There is so much more I could say, but I wish to emphasise my wholehearted support.

Mary Foy: As we have heard today, England is in the midst of a mental health crisis, and that is certainly true in the north-east. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) in calling for an independent inquiry into the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust. The testimonies I have heard have shocked me. I know that I can speak only in broad terms, but they include serious cases of improper care and misdiagnosis, and of putting people on waiting lists despite their feeling suicidal.
The Care Quality Commission reports that we have seen raise concerns about risk assessments, communications and record keeping, and a lack of observation. There have also been concerns raised about the lack of beds for children, as well as poor staffing levels, high staff turnover and a lack of neurodiversity training. Horrifically, young people have even taken their lives while in the care of the trust. We owe it to them, and all those  who have been harmed, to investigate what is going  on within the trust. Will the Minister commit to an  independent, judge-led inquiry into the trust? She can either respond to me now or I can wait for her response in her closing speech. One thing is clear: this cannot go on.
I want to highlight the crisis in children’s mental health. In my region, children spent over 1,000 hours in A&E because they were in a mental health crisis. There are over 30,000 children on waiting lists. Across England, one in six children aged five to 16 are likely to have a mental health issue. Children’s happiness and sense of wellbeing continues to decline. With mental health trusts raising the threshold of how ill under-18s must be, we have seen a quarter of a million children being denied help for their mental health. Poor mental health compounds. Left untreated, it can spiral out of control, as we have heard many times today. No one should be in a mental health crisis, let alone children. The Government must invest in children’s mental health today—no more delays and no more referrals. The Minister must allow children the happiness that they deserve.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Minister, I must say that I am very disappointed that seven Opposition Members who spoke in the debate are not back in the Chamber for the wind-ups, as well as about three Government Members. I must emphasise again that it is really important for people to get back to hear what the shadow Minister has to say, as well as the Minister. I hope that message will be conveyed back to those Members who are not here. I will say it again in the hope that they are back by the time the shadow Minister has finished his speech.

Andrew Gwynne: It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the shadow health and social care team.
We have had a thorough debate and we have heard some heartbreaking, harrowing and concerning things during its course. The amendment that the Minister has put down in response to the motion is reminiscent of “Alice Through the Looking Glass”, because it does not bear any relationship to people’s lived experiences of the mental health system in England or the contributions made by Members from both sides of the House to the debate.
I pay tribute to all who have spoken today. There have been some incredible speeches. We heard from the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and from the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Penistone and Stockbridge (Miriam Candidates), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who made an extremely powerful contribution, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for West Ham (Ms Brown)—I ask the Minister not to forget her  request for a meeting; she is certainly someone to whom it is difficult to say no—for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist). Finally, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy); I remind the Minister that she would like a response to her request for an inquiry into issues in her local area.
We are facing a mental health emergency in this country—

Vicky Ford: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government’s amendment bears no relation to the reality of what people are seeing. In my speech I mentioned the creation of a brand-new facility for patients in mid-Essex, which means that people in crisis are not spending many hours in A&E but are going to a bespoke 24/7 centre. That is the sort of provision that I want to support, and it is mentioned in the Government amendment but not in the Opposition motion.

Andrew Gwynne: Of course we need facilities in every part of England, but the fact is that after 13 years, too many parts of England are falling behind. We know that the mental health crisis in this country has become worse on the watch of the right hon. Lady’s Government, and she should have a little contrition about the state of mental health services in England.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I will not give way. We have heard enough from the right hon. Lady, supporting her “Through the Looking-Glass” amendment which bears no relation to the reality.
As we have heard today, people who require mental health support, no matter where they live—except  in the right hon. Lady’s part of England—will be  confronted by a system that is buckling under the pressure of 13 years of Tory mismanagement, neglect and incompetence. The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but the figures speak for themselves. Last year, patients suffering with mental health issues waited more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency departments. There are 400,000 children currently waiting for mental health treatment, and 1.2 million people are waiting for community mental health care, with some patients being forced to travel more than 300 miles because there are no beds in their local area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke powerfully about that. The Resolution Foundation has found that, of the 185,000 young people who are unable to work, nearly two thirds cite mental ill health as the reason. Suicide is now the leading cause of death in adults under 34, with about 18 people losing their lives every single day. As the cost of living crisis has worsened, we have also seen a knock-on effect on addiction and rehabilitation. Drug-related deaths are at a record  high, and last year there were 9,641 deaths in the  UK from alcohol misuse, a 27% increase on the  year before.
Make no mistake: the emergency in mental health has become a public health crisis, and we need to see action. Our motion calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit 8,500 mental health staff to expand access to treatment, to provide specialist mental health support in every school, and to establish open-access mental health hubs for children and young people. That would be paid for by the closing of tax loopholes, because politics is about priorities, and Labour’s priority is to ensure that those who need mental health support have access to it in all parts of the country. Our priority is to build a Britain where patients start receiving appropriate treatment within a month of referral. I hope that those on the Government Benches will demonstrate that they share these priorities by voting for Labour’s motion today.
Staffing is just one part of the equation. Like any public health issue, addressing mental health requires a holistic approach that recognises its complex nature. That is why Labour has committed to a whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs and to address the social determinants that drive mental ill health for many people. Our mental health can be influenced by a multitude of different things. Secure jobs, fair pay and good housing are all building blocks for a healthy life, physically and mentally, and unless we improve people’s lives in the round, positive change will remain out of reach.
It is for this reason that the next Labour Government will focus as much on prevention as we do on treatment. We will pioneer a transformative cross-departmental agenda with a mission delivery board at the heart of the Government ensuring that all Departments work to improve the wider determinants of health. We will boost capacity in mental and public health teams so that people can get the support they need before presenting at A&E or turning to substance abuse. We will also encourage the integrated care systems to identify opportunities to join up services within the community. Our aim will be for more patients to have one point of contact for appointments with a range of professionals and services. This neighbourhood team will include the family doctor, carers, health visitors, social prescribers and mental health specialists.
Our vision is to turn the national health service into a neighbourhood health service with the patient right at the heart of it. The benefits of this kind of work will travel far beyond improving the lives of individuals suffering from mental ill health. For instance, in my own region of the north-west of England there were over 140,000 calls to 999 from people in a mental health crisis last year, and in my own constituency local people spent over 6,500 hours waiting in A&E for mental health treatment. If we were to help people before they reached these crisis points, we would drastically reduce pressure on the wider health system and thereby improve patient outcomes right across the board.
The same is true of wider economic productivity. As we have heard in the debate, the Mental Health Foundation and the London School of Economics have estimated that poor mental health costs the British economy £117 billion a year. That is a phenomenal amount of money and a huge loss to our country’s economic power. Improving mental health outcomes is therefore not just a moral imperative—although it is certainly that—but a practical one, and one that is essential if we  want the United Kingdom to prosper, as I hope and believe we all do. That is what we come to this House for. We want to leave our country in a better shape for our children than it has been for ourselves.
That brings me again to the motion. All Members of the House have the opportunity today to support a fully funded plan to improve mental health treatment. Those on the Government Benches can choose to put party politics first, but that will not change the fact that this Government have failed people on mental health. No matter what amendments they put before us, that does not change people’s real, lived experiences or the experiences of Members on both sides of the House who deal with the impact of mental ill health in their constituency casework. The system is crumbling and more of the same will just not cut it, so I am enormously proud to be supporting Labour’s motion today and I would strongly urge Members on both sides of the House to back it. It is time to give those suffering from mental ill health the treatment and support they deserve, and I commend our motion to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I reiterate for those who were not here that it is incredibly important that people get back in good time to hear the Opposition wind-up as well as the Government wind-up—that includes Ministers. I would expect anybody who was not here at the beginning of the Opposition wind-up, some of whom are still not here, to write to Mr Speaker to apologise. I take it that people will do that.

Maria Caulfield: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What a shame it is that the Opposition have chosen to play politics with mental health, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), because these are important issues. All countries are facing challenges with rising cases of mental ill health and capacity issues, but we have made progress in the last 10 years. It was in 2016 that David Cameron first talked about changing the stigma on mental health and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford put it so well, we want more people to come forward. The problem in the past was that people did not come forward, instead waiting until they became so acutely unwell that it was more difficult to support them.

Neil Hudson: A recurrent theme in today’s debate, on both sides of the House, has been the importance of prevention and breaking down stigma. Does my hon. Friend agree that the message should go out from Members on both sides of the House that it is okay not to be okay, that people should reach out and that more people in all walks of life should be first aid-trained to help when people do reach out?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we had an event with the NFU yesterday, and that is exactly the point we wanted to make. It was my right  hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who set about changing the status of mental health, putting it on a level playing field with physical health, not just in the services we provide but in funding and staffing, with parity of esteem across the board.
Let us look at some of the progress that has been made over the last 10 years. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), said in her opening remarks that she is bored of this figure, but it is true that £2.3 billion of additional funding is being put into frontline mental health services, supporting another 2 million people to access NHS-funded mental health services.
We are already doing much of what shadow Ministers have set out this afternoon. We are already recruiting 27,000 additional staff into mental health services, with 20,000 of them already in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford highlighted the difference that is making in her local area. We are removing dormitory accommodation across the country through a £400 million capital programme, and 29 schemes have already gone through—that is 500 beds that are no longer in dormitory-style accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge highlighted the difference that funding is making in his constituency. We are moving to a system of community crisis support and early intervention so that people do not get to a point where they need to be admitted. Our £190 million of capital funding is being used to build community crisis facilities up and down the country. We are investing in mental health ambulances: 20 are already in place, 40 will be in place by the end of the year, and 47 will be in place next year. The shadow Minister laughs about this, but when somebody is going into crisis, it is more appropriate that a mental health specialist team visits them in a mental health ambulance than an ordinary paramedic, who will inevitably take them to A&E.
Suicide is the leading cause of death in new mums, which is completely unacceptable. That is why we are investing in perinatal mental health services in every part of England—these services saw 31,500 women last year.
As we remove the stigma, it is important that we have the services to deal with the rising number of people who come forward and ask for help, as we want them to do. We have introduced three targets, the first of which is on access to talking therapies, where 75% of people should begin treatment within six weeks. Currently, 90% of people are doing so and we are meeting that target. When children and young people are referred for eating disorders, the target is that 95% should be seen within one week. We are currently at 77%, whereas last year’s figure was 61%, so despite the rising numbers we are seeing more children with eating disorders—

Vicky Ford: I was incredibly upset by the shadow Minister’s suggestion that I do not care about mental health. As someone who has suffered with mental ill health in the past and spoken in the Chamber about how hard it is to speak about that, I found that very upsetting. Mental health suffered greatly during the pandemic, especially that of children and young people—I was the children’s Minister at the time. We all know that  we need to do better, which is why it is important that we learn about what is working now and about new innovations. On eating disorders, I particularly thank the Minister for getting the waiting list time down.

Maria Caulfield: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It is important that we take the politics out of this argument, because no one in this Chamber, on either side, does not care about mental health.
The psychosis target we have introduced is that 60% of people should start treatment within six weeks, and we are currently at 72%. We are overperforming on many of those targets. NHS England has five new targets that we hope to introduce soon—

Neil Coyle: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Caulfield: Unfortunately, given the time I have left, I will not give way any more.
As for the challenges we face, we are seeing rising numbers, but we are seeing that in all parts of the country. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), talked about not judging Labour on its track record on health in Wales, where Labour has produced smaller funding increases for its health service; its 7.8% increase compares with the 8.6% increase that we have given in England. Mind Cymru has said that hundreds of people across Wales are currently waiting more than a year to access psychological therapies. The target is supposed to be that 80% of people in Wales access therapies within six months, but that target has never been met. It gets worse, because since 2020 the number of people waiting longer than a year in Wales for mental health support has increased by 17%. Labour talks a good game, but its actions speak louder than its words. I urge shadow Ministers to acknowledge that these problems exist in all countries and that we all face these pressures. A grown-up conversation would be about sharing best practice and working together to make that happen.
Many Members talked about preventive and early intervention therapies. My hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) talked about that and about moving away from the medicalisation of mental health. That is why we are investing in talking therapies. For anyone who has not been on the Every Mind Matters website, let me say that it provides practical support for people who are anxious, distressed or not sleeping. It also provides for self-referrals to talking therapies. Since we introduced that, more than 1.2 million patients have accessed NHS talking therapies in the last year, helping them to overcome anxiety and depression. More than 90% of those people have had their treatment completed within six weeks.
Many Members talked about schools, and we are introducing mental health support teams in schools. We have almost 400 now, covering more than 3 million children, and about 35% of schools and colleges. More than 10,000 schools and colleges have trained a senior mental health specialist, including more than six in 10 state schools. That work is happening already and it is making a difference right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) highlighted how we need to move that into universities, and I would be happy to talk to him about how we can do that further.
On in-patient services and the quality of care, we have recently conducted a rapid review of mental health in-patient settings. The Secretary of State will announce the results of that soon. We have also introduced a three-year quality transformation programme, which seeks to tackle the root cause of unsafe, poor-quality in-patient care, particularly for those with learning disabilities and autism.
On suicide prevention, our forthcoming strategy will target high-risk groups and locations of concern. We will also provide £10 million of funding for charities that do so much good work in this space. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border that I would be very happy to meet the 3 Dads Walking, Andy, Mike and Tim. I know that they have met the Prime Minister.

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Caulfield: I am just answering a question on suicide. I would be very happy to meet the 3 Dads Walking to learn the lessons for our suicide prevention strategy.

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister give way now?

Maria Caulfield: I will not give way. I only have a few minutes left.
It is disappointing that Labour Members cannot understand the progress that has been made and are determined to make political points, damaging the work that our NHS staff up and down the country do day in, day out, backed by record levels of investment that have never been seen before in mental health services.
It is true that we have tabled an amendment this afternoon, in which the Prime Minister acknowledges how much work we have done in this space. With a rising number of people accessing mental health support, which is a good thing and not something to be criticised, we are investing in those services and in 27,000 extra staff.

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister meet me?

Maria Caulfield: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue if I may.
Despite the disingenuous motion proposed by the Labour party, it is my privilege to hear about the valuable contributions being made up and down the country. It is so easy to talk down our services, but if Labour Members are serious about improving mental health services, perhaps they should talk to their Welsh counterparts. Action speaks louder than words. Mental health services in England are performing better than those in Wales. We all know that this is not really about improving mental health services; it is about using mental health as a political football, but we on the Government Benches will not play that game.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 280.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House notes the increased burden on mental health following the pandemic, including on young people and those with severe mental illness; recognises the historic levels of investment being delivered by this Government into services, with an increase of £2.3 billion per year in front-line mental health funding over the past four years; notes that current NHS targets around access to talking therapies and intervention in psychosis are being met due to the efforts of NHS staff; and acknowledges the investment   in mental health teams in schools, as well as the ongoing investment into open access mental health helplines in the 111 service and into the estate, including three new mental health hospitals to be opened in the next two years accompanied by a further £150 million in investment in new mental health ambulances and the development of better alternatives to accident and emergency services, including crisis houses, safe havens and step-down services.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Monday, the Home Secretary gave inaccurate information to Parliament when she said that
“the asylum initial decision backlog is down by 17,000”.—[Official Report, 5 June 2023; Vol. 733, c. 557.]
The asylum initial decision backlog is clearly defined by the Home Office. It is the total backlog of initial decisions before and after June of last year, and Home Office figures show that it has gone up from 132,000 to 137,000 for main applicants since the beginning of December. It has gone up from 160,000 to 172,000 for all applicants in the first quarter of this year. On either measure, that backlog is up, and not down.
I raised this matter as a point of order on Monday, and the Home Secretary refused to correct the record then. I have written to the Home Secretary this morning, but have still heard nothing back. The ministerial code requires
“that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
I know that the Home Secretary has a history of breaching the ministerial code but, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you agree that facts matter and that it is not acceptable for Ministers to fail to correct the record if they have given inaccurate information to Parliament? Have you heard from the Home Secretary about her intention to come and correct the record?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. As has been said before, and I think this was said when she raised the point of order yesterday, it is obviously not for the Chair to adjudicate in cases of differing interpretations of statistics. That said, if a Minister has made a mistake in the House, I would of course expect them to correct it. The right hon. Lady has put her perspective on the record. Ministers will have heard it, and I am sure the Home Secretary will reflect on whether a correction is required in this case. I see that the Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), is writing this down and it will be fed back, and I am sure Ministers will do the same. I thank the right hon. Lady, and I think we will leave it at that.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Lisa Nandy: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities provide all papers, advice and correspondence involving Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, including submissions and electronic communications, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that this review should not be led by the National Audit Office.
Let me start by saying that I am really disappointed that it has come to this. Devolution was meant to empower people in every part of Britain to “take charge of their own destiny”. This Government were elected on exactly that promise and exactly those words, and here we are standing in the House of Commons trying to persuade the Government to come clean about why they have chosen to block an independent inquiry that would help us get to the bottom of the use of public assets and funds on Teesside in the wake of some of the most serious allegations I have ever seen in my time in Parliament.
For nine years, since the Government accepted Greater Manchester’s case for greater devolution, I and many others on all sides of this House have been pressing the Government to respect the right of people in every part of Britain to know how their assets and money are being used and to close the gap that currently exists by inviting people back into the conversation, and by building a system of local and national scrutiny and accountability that is fit for purpose, backed by a Government who are willing to open the books.

Simon Clarke: I think the key point in this debate was aired in what the hon. Lady said a moment ago, when she said that some of the most serious allegations she has ever heard aired in this House have been made. Will she stand with those allegations? At the moment, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) has alleged “industrial-scale corruption”. The hon. Lady has been very careful in all her public utterances, as indeed has he outside this Chamber, to avoid repeating that claim. Does she agree with him, or does she not?

Lisa Nandy: The problem, as the right hon. Member well knows, is that Members of this House and, more importantly, people on Teesside simply do not know the answer to that question. Serious allegations have been raised not just by Members on the Opposition Benches, but by respected national journalists who have conducted meticulous investigations, and the point of holding an independent inquiry is that these serious allegations and the questions that have been raised need to be answered.
At every juncture and at every level of Government, when it comes to fair and reasonable questions about the South Tees development corporation, accountability,  scrutiny and democratic control have broken down. It is only because of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and some tenacious, meticulous journalists, such as Jennifer Williams of the Financial Times, that we even know the bare facts of what has unfolded. People on Teesside should not have to rely on a national newspaper to discover what has been done with their assets, their community and their civic inheritance.

Sara Britcliffe: rose—

Lisa Nandy: If the hon. Member wants to say otherwise, she is very welcome to do so now.

Sara Britcliffe: Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady confirming that she will not repeat outside this Chamber the allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)?

Lisa Nandy: Honestly. It is about time that hon. Members stopped chirping and started paying attention.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has accepted that an investigation is needed to give investors confidence. I saw him walking through the Chamber a moment ago, Madam Deputy Speaker—he could not get away quick enough. This is why we want to see an investigation launched without delay: to restore investor confidence and the confidence of the public in both the project and the devolution model itself.
The Secretary of State’s decision to block the National Audit Office from investigating these allegations is nothing short of bizarre. It is an investigation that is backed by the Tees Valley Mayor, by the official Opposition and by three Select Committee Chairs. The National Audit Office has the experience, capacity and independence to carry out an investigation—it has said itself it was able to do so and that the Secretary of State has the power to order that investigation—so it beggars belief that the Secretary of State has blocked that inquiry and now set up a review where the terms of reference and the members have been hand-picked by him. Then to come to the House on Monday and be unwilling—or perhaps unable—to answer basic questions about why he chose to do that is completely unacceptable. Saying that consultations were had and that the Government do not wish to set a precedent will not do. For decades, people on Teesside have made a major contribution to the UK through the steel industry. The Teesworks belongs to them and they have the right to know what is being done with it in their name.

Catherine West: The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech to open the debate. Does she agree with me, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on devolution, that we all want our regions to prosper and grow, but that things have to be done properly and be seen to be done properly?

Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has been a huge champion of this for communities across the country. Most importantly, our regions will not prosper and will not grow unless we can have confidence that decisions are being taken in the right way and in the public interest, and the people of that region need to know that they will benefit from those decisions. That is the point of devolution.

Robert Goodwill: Would the hon. Lady not agree that Teesside did not prosper or grow for decades after the demise of heavy industry and that it was only when Ben Houchen came along and started delivering for the people that people started realising that the Conservatives on Teesside were delivering, when Labour had failed for generations?

Lisa Nandy: I will take absolutely no lessons from a representative of a political party that stood aside and watched as the Tees works collapsed in 2015.
Labour is therefore asking the Government to provide all papers, advice and correspondence, including Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that the review should not be led by the National Audit Office.

Helen Morgan: The hon. Member is probably aware that, in addition to the scandal that she is outlining in her excellent speech, Woking Council has today issued a section 114 notice, following its having run up £1.9 billion of debts under a Conservative-led administration, when it has core spending power of just £14 million. Does she agree that a National Audit Office investigation is important for the people of Woking as well, because there is clearly inadequate scrutiny of decision making on public money?

Lisa Nandy: There is a wider point here, which is that devolution matters but it matters for a reason. It matters because decisions taken closer to people, driven by the people of the place they call home and for the benefit of those people, have the ability to transform lives. We need and deserve proper robust scrutiny arrangements and accountability in every part of the country, not just some, in order to ensure that.
I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members making accusations at our doorstep about unfounded allegations and naysaying about regeneration in the north-east. They are wrong and I suspect that they know it. The Labour Front-Bench team has not made allegations against Teesworks and the development corporation, and we will not do so before any investigation reports back. What we have asked for is honesty, transparency and clarity about what appears on the face of it to be an incredibly murky situation. It is the clear breakdown of local accountability that is sufficiently alarming that an investigation by the National Audit Office is required. We want to see this resolved. Conservative Members should want to see this resolved for the benefit of people on Teesside. The South Tees Mayor believes that is the case, as do three Select Committee Chairs, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—if he did not, no investigation at all would be forthcoming. Let me be clear that the Humble Address today is about ensuring that a proper, full and independent investigation can take place in terms sufficient to provide the public with confidence in the process and the outcome of the investigation. In hand picking a panel and terms of reference, the Secretary of State has done a disservice to the principle of independent scrutiny and to his commitment  to devolution, which until today I believed to be sincere. He has made it harder for confidence and transparency to return.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for being so generous with her time. Some of the claims she makes are quite serious and in this House we always want to act in the spirit of transparency and openness, but with these very serious claims, I would ask: where is the evidence—what is the basis of this in the first place? Perhaps she could outline some of the evidence she is using as the basis for making these claims in the first place.

Lisa Nandy: The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with his colleague, the Mayor in question, who has referred himself and asked for a National Audit Office investigation. I do not know why Members on the Government Benches think his judgment is so poor that he should not have done that, but we believe he is absolutely right to have done that and we stand firmly behind him in asking for a proper investigation.
Incredibly, even by the standards of this shambolic Government, the terms of reference and the names of the panel members for this inquiry were sent to me seven minutes before this debate began. That genuinely is no way to conduct government. I assume that is where the Secretary of State is right now: sitting behind his desk knocking out terms of reference on the back of a fag packet. Clearly, I have not had much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read them, but on first sight what he has sent me looks like a system-focused review, rather than an investigation into what has happened. Ministers have still failed to give us an explanation as to why the National Audit Office cannot conduct its own investigation, a body that has capacity, resources and expertise, and is widely respected across the political spectrum. Instead, we are having a bizarre argument about the remit of a respected organisation that is patently able to conduct the investigation required. Can the Minister not see why the public would rightly raise an eyebrow?
It is completely unacceptable for the Government to hide from proper scrutiny. I remember a time when the Secretary of State could not wait to get to his place in this House. Nowadays, we barely see him. Where is he today? There is no clear justification for not ordering a comprehensive independent investigation from the National Audit Office. It cannot be right that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been handed over to a company that is now 90% in private ownership, and it appears that the Department has handed over that money and then simply walked away. This is a matter that has profound implications for people on Teesside, who rightly expect this site, through which they contributed so much to our country over so many years, to continue to benefit them and their community for years to come.
There is much we do not know about what has happened—that is the reason we need an independent investigation—but here is what we do know. When the 140-year-old steel industry on Teesside collapsed in 2015, thousands of jobs were lost along with a key political, social and economic asset for the communities of the north-east of England. In 2017, the South Tees Development Corporation began to collate over 4,500 acres of industrial land, including the site of the former steelworks, off the back of a Conservative Government promising hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer  funding for the project, something we had championed and welcomed. In the face of losing that key economic and social asset, it is absolutely right that all options were considered about how to build a wide programme of regeneration around the site and that the combined authority was given the autonomy to determine the strategy to regenerate the site. Even where we have strong disagreements about policy, strategy and direction, that point is not, and will never be, in dispute.
However, in May, an extensive report by the Financial Times detailed how the Government had spent hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to support a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake. The deal never went through a public tender process. There was no consultation. There was no announcement. It also reports that those developers have secured £45 million already in dividends, despite failing apparently to invest a single penny of their own money in the project. In return for their role in securing the site, the South Tees Development Corporation awarded companies owned by the developers a 50% stake in the joint venture that would operate the project—a share transfer that also took place without any public tender. The new operating company, eventually named Teesworks Ltd, controlled the entire 4,500-acre site and its assets, including 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal. It was also given the option to buy any parcel of land on the site at market rate.
The announcement that freeport status was being awarded led the South Tees Development Corporation to fundamentally change its business model, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws and published by Private Eye. Following that, in a complex two-stage process, the two developers ended up with a 90% stake in the project, also without ever going through public bidding. According to emails received again under freedom of information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Department with responsibility for the project in Government—one official only became aware of the deal via the media in January 2022 and expressed “concern” and “surprise”. The Financial Times reports that an official at the Department’s office in the north-east responded that he had received “verbal” assurance locally that the deal was value for money. Can the Minister see why such serious concerns have been raised on both sides of the House, including by respected Members such as the Chairs of the Select Committees?
It is at this point that we called for the National Audit Office to investigate this matter in its entirety, to restore confidence for investors and the public in what was an increasingly murky affair. Indeed, the former chief executive of the Audit Commission, a public body that examined local government entities before it was disbanded by the Conservative Government, says the evidence
“calls for a full and thorough investigation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as the situation now appears far remote from the business case originally agreed with Government”.

Simon Clarke: It is important to be clear that he is himself a former Labour councillor. The point in this debate is that we are offering an independent inquiry. As we have heard, an inquiry is under way and the reasons the NAO is not the appropriate body were set out very clearly by the Secretary of State in his letter.

Lisa Nandy: Can I just correct the right hon. Member? As he well knows, this is not an independent or full investigation. Perhaps he also has not had the courtesy of having been given the time by the Secretary of State to look at the full terms of reference, but it genuinely beggars belief to try to claim that this is somehow politically motivated. If Conservative Members believe that the call for a NAO inquiry is politically motivated, they might want to ask the Mayor what on earth he is doing calling for one himself.

Meg Hillier: In all of this heat, it might be wise to be clear about the independent role of the NAO. The Comptroller and Auditor General has letters patent from the King and reports to this House, not to Government. He is independent and makes his own decisions, and it was his independent decision that it would be appropriate, because of the size of the site, to offer the opportunity to do an audit. It is then a matter for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not he asks for that to happen. It is a three-legged stool, because then the local organisations have to agree to open their books, too. It is important to be clear on the record that the NAO is not making political decisions here; it is a very independent decision by the chief auditor of this country.

Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which absolutely concurs with my experience of the NAO. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of having written to the NAO to raise concerns, and all of us are treated with decency and impartiality by the NAO when it seeks to respond.
Unbelievably, the situation gets even more complicated. Questions were raised at that point about whether the NAO even had the ability to investigate. It turns out that it did, subject to the preparation of a suitably worded agreement between the Minister and the relevant body into which the examination is to be conducted. We called on the Secretary of State to provide such an agreement, which was met with radio silence. Into that void stepped the Prime Minister, who confirmed at Prime Minister’s questions on 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) that the Levelling Up Secretary had already announced an investigation into this matter, much to the surprise of our Front Benchers and Government Front Benchers, too. However, the Secretary of State has decided not to do so, instead preferring to hand-pick a panel of his own to investigate. Given that the Tees Valley Mayor has asked for an investigation and the NAO has the capacity and remit provided by statutory powers, we deserve to know why Ministers have decided to block that investigation, beyond what we have been told so far—that they consulted and decided against it.
Now that we have the terms of reference, let me say this to the Minister: it is utterly unacceptable to establish an inquiry that fails to ensure that all decisions that have led to the current situation are on the table, with no exclusion of factors that would impact a complete and fair assessment of whether the public interest has been protected. It must have expert support, administrative capacity and resources to ensure the same level of access that the NAO would have had. Any officials who  worked at South Tees Development Corporation or public bodies on Teesside must be free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that exist.
The investigation must report back on what assessment the Department and wider Government made of the South Tees Development Corporation’s decision to transfer a 50% stake in the joint venture without any public tender process. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that from a sedentary position. Presumably, he has had a chance to read those terms of reference. It would have been nice if Members had been afforded the same courtesy. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering again from a sedentary position. That is precisely what we are attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Tees Valley Mayor is attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Chairs of the Select Committees in this House are attempting to do—establish the facts. And that is what the people on Teesside are attempting to—establish the facts. It says something about the extraordinary arrogance of this Government that they think that is an unacceptable request.
The investigation must confirm when Ministers were first made aware of the decision to increase the share to 90% and if an assessment of value for money for taxpayers was made in advance. Could the Minister confirm whether there was any discussion of the terms of reference with the relevant Select Committee Chairs—including the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Business and Trade Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—or are the Government determined to show the same contempt for Members that they are showing for people on Teesside?

Matt Western: My hon. Friend was going through the events of the past week or so and the actions of Government, which smack of a cover-up. That is the fear and concern of the people of the Tees area and the wider public.

Lisa Nandy: I studiously avoided trying to prejudice any terms of the inquiry in advance of their announcement, but I was given seven minutes for a cursory glance at the terms of reference. If the Minister wants to tell people on Teesside that they deserve two minutes to understand the terms of reference, he is very welcome. That is arrogant and shows utter contempt for people in this country. Having looked at the terms of reference, I share my hon. Friend’s view. To many people in this country, it increasingly looks like an utter whitewash.
As far back as 2015, I raised concerns with this Government that democracy must not be an afterthought in the devolution model. Where the public have been let into the conversation, it is because of some of our brilliant Mayors across the country, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, who have chosen to go out proactively and involve the public in conversations about the things that matter deeply to them and to their lives. As has been so often said, it is our right to have that information and to be in charge of our own destiny; it should not be in the gift of whoever happens to be elected. When the respected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says that the  measures that we have around transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not sufficiently robust, Ministers must take that seriously.
On the Opposition Benches, we believe that the people on Teesside are just as deserving of safeguards to ensure that the public money and assets spent and used on their behalf are used for their benefit and in their interests as the people in London, Greater Manchester or the west midlands. These are our communities; they are our assets; it is our money; and it is about time this Government started to show some respect for a country that belongs to us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Let me try to make an assessment of how many people are trying to catch my eye, so that I am able to gently point out that Back Benchers may have a relatively short amount of time to make their contributions. I hope that colleagues will bear that it mind.
I remind colleagues that if they speak in the debate, I want them to be back in good time for the wind-ups, including the Minister. If interventions are made on a speaker, it is normal practice to stay until the end of that speech.

Lee Rowley: It is, rightly, a long-standing convention that Opposition parties in this place have the opportunity to raise their concerns through debates such as this, to deal with the big issues of the day and to use the precious time of the House to articulate their vision for the future of this country. On these occasions, the Opposition can choose the subjects, the words they use, the allegations they make and the inferences they allow to be drawn.
So here we are today, having a debate about a blighted and costly site, with a massive price tag when industrial activity ceased, that is being transformed for the benefit of those who live and work nearby, in a region that is on the up. The debate is not about the achievements to date, or the failure of successive Labour Governments and Members of Parliament to improve the lives of people on Teesside. Instead, it is a debate about technicalities. It is not about whether a review will happen, look at these matters in depth or be led by independent experts, because all that will happen. Neither is it about whether the facts will be established, as was raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), because they will be.
Instead, the Opposition have chosen to have a three-hour debate about the process by which a decision was made to have a review that is led by one group of people, instead of by another group of people. It is a debate about how we have chosen to set up a review, in the usual way that we choose to set up reviews rather than in the extraordinary way that the Opposition propose. The Labour party makes strange choices.
I want to say this, because it is important: the Government believe in the people and the places that make Teesside special. We have backed them with funding and powers to level up, which was sorely lacking under the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. That was why Ben Houchen was elected as Mayor in the first  place. His record of attracting investment and delivering for the Tees Valley speaks for itself. In that spirit, he approached the Government some time ago about an independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture after the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) had made serious allegations in the House, which he will not repeat outside the House. I want to make it clear now that, as previously stated, Ministers and officials have so far seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.

Clive Efford: rose—

Lee Rowley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can, perhaps, tell us precisely what corruption, wrongdoing and illegality he is alleging.

Clive Efford: I just want to point out to the Minister that what he is threatening my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough with is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. We have had debates in this Chamber about SLAPPs; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is sitting next to the Minister, has supported action against them and their use to cover up the Londongrad fraud whereby illegal money has been washed through London banks and financial centres. The Minister should think very carefully before he comes here and threatens people with legal action outside the House to silence democratic debate.

Lee Rowley: There is absolutely no silencing going on. We are debating, we will continue to debate, and we have set up a review to ensure that we understand the allegations that have been made. It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough refuses to repeat those allegations elsewhere, and for people to draw whatever conclusion they wish to draw from that. However, it is also clear that the allegations being made threaten to damage confidence in Teesworks and its success—hence the Secretary of State’s decision on 24 May to commission an independent review of the joint venture.
On the “Today” programme this morning, the hon. Member for Wigan was challenged with the observation that
“there is a danger that political parties throw about allegations of corruption”.
To that point no answer came this morning, and an answer certainly did not come in the opening speech. Now that the Labour party has chosen to allocate a significant amount of parliamentary time to this discussion today, it is incumbent on Opposition Members to spell out their specific concerns. They may have tried not to do that, but they need to state the allegations about which they are concerned.
We listened to a long speech from the hon. Member for Wigan, who set out a factual case about the events that happened in the order in which they happened, but made no comment about what element of concern she felt about each of them. There have been no specific allegations; nothing has been forthcoming except rumour, gossip and innuendo. Perhaps the hon. Lady does not wish to provide allegations, but Opposition Members have certainly alleged that this is the case.

Lisa Nandy: rose—

Lee Rowley: The hon. Lady has already had a significant amount of time in which to speak, and I am not willing to give her more time to produce similar innuendo. On 20 April the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was very clear about industrial-scale corruption, but provided no further information. If Opposition Members cannot provide specific information, specific allegations and specific concerns in this debate, that will show how little interest they have in the truth rather than innuendo.

Lisa Nandy: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Lee Rowley: I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Lisa Nandy: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening to make sure that some basic manners and courtesies are respected.
May I ask the Minister to stop this ridiculous politicking? I have just set out for him a series of concerning points that have been raised by a respected national newspaper, with evidence behind them, many of which are not disputed by those involved in the proceedings. I have explained to him why an independent investigation is needed, and I answered those questions on the radio this morning, as he well knows. He may not agree that the National Audit Office is the best body to investigate, but if he disagrees with that, why will he not tell us the reason? That is all we are asking for.

Lee Rowley: I believe the hon. Lady said on LBC this morning that no allegations of corruption were being made. In the spirit of being willing to accept interventions, I am happy to take a further intervention from her. What specific allegations is she actually concerned about?

Lisa Nandy: We are concerned about the fact that no value for money is being achieved in this project, because of allegations raised in the report in the Financial Times, which set out that hundreds of millions of pounds have been put behind a project that Ministers appear to have handed over and then walked away, in a company 90% of which has been transferred into private ownership, where two investors have taken—apparently; allegedly—£45 million out but put not a penny in. We want to ensure that that constitutes value for money for the public and that this asset, which belongs to the people of Teesside, will be used for the benefit of people on Teesside for generations to come. If the Minister can reassure us in detail on those points, it would be absolutely wonderful. If he cannot, why will he not commit to an independent investigation?

Lee Rowley: That is, finally, extraordinarily helpful. For the first time in multiple questions to the hon. Lady, she has actually given an answer. She is concerned about value for money. Excellent! We are all concerned about value for money across local government. That is why we have a best value regime, which means that the Secretary of State announces inquiries and reviews, and appoints people to undertake them. The hon. Lady and her Front Bench team know that, because we have talked about it on numerous occasions in this place. They are completely aware of the best value regime that this Government use, because in 1999 it was the Labour party that endorsed that regime as part of its legislation.

Simon Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Lee Rowley: I will give way to my right hon. Friend, who actually knows what he is talking about on this issue.

Simon Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that it is Labour’s own regime that we are applying, but can we also get on record the fact that Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities officials do not believe that the threshold for a best value investigation has been met in this case? That is to say, the civil service does not believe that such an investigation is merited. We are doing it to dispel the allegations and smears from the Opposition.

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that important point, particularly in respect of the Department.
It is important, given the inferences by the Opposition, to highlight what has actually been put in place. The specific terms of reference and the announcement that was made long before today are clear about the intention of the Government to clarify this matter. The review will be led by Angie Ridgwell, who is currently chief executive of Lancashire County Council and has over 30 years of experience across local government, central Government and the private sector. She will be supported by Quentin Baker, a qualified solicitor and director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council, and by Richard Paver, who brings significant financial experience and knowledge of combined authorities from his previous role as the first treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. They bring significant experience of senior public leadership, specific financial and legal expertise, and confidence of detailed scrutiny. All Members of the House should support their important work so that they can proceed quickly and free from partisan comments.
There is still time for Labour Members to articulate why they are suddenly so keen on NAO-led inquiries in local government when they have not been keen on them before. When there are challenges or potential questions, there is a long-standing precedent of someone other than the NAO reviewing and assessing those concerns. Why should Labour Members know this? Because, as I said, they endorsed this process in the Local Government Act 1999. They confirmed that the Secretary of State could determine the approach where there were questions about local government bodies, and as far as I am aware, they have not critiqued the use of those powers when they have been used multiple times before, including in the last few weeks. Perhaps Labour Members could tell me which parts of the Local Government Act 1999—their Act, their decisions, their choices—they have randomly, abruptly and arbitrarily decided, simply for the purposes of an Opposition day debate, that they no longer wish the Government to apply.
If Labour Members are deciding that they no longer want to use the established regime, perhaps they could tell me which of the established reviews, inquiries, panels or commissioners they wish to switch into their newly preferred process. I do not remember this being requested when the Secretary of State intervened following an external review of Labour-led Sandwell Council in 2021, following allegations of serious misconduct by members  and officers that painted a deeply troubling picture of mismanagement. Should we move that to an NAO review?
I do not remember Labour suggesting this approach when the then Secretary of State determined to appoint experts to carry out an inspection at Labour-led Liverpool City Council in 2020 as a result of arrests made on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption and misconduct in public office. [Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering on the Opposition Benches, but are they seeking to bring the NAO into that? The hon. Member for Wigan talks about hand-picking, but the Labour party appointed its own inquiry into the wrongdoing. That inquiry was led by a former Labour MP, supported by a peer newly ennobled by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). And I cannot remember the Labour party requesting an NAO review of Labour-led Croydon Council after a number of serious concerns about the council’s governance and risk management were outlined in a public interest report by external auditors in 2020.
The cold, hard facts are these: the Mayor of Tees Valley has had much success over the past half a decade in bringing jobs, growth and economic development to an area that is now on the up and thriving again, thanks to its Conservative leadership and its engaged and constructive Conservative Members of Parliament. On this specific issue, the Government agreed to a request from the Mayor for a review, which is being set up in a similar way to other reviews. Those who will be involved have been appointed as others have been appointed in the past. The terms of reference have been published using a similar process and, if there is an issue, we will deal with it in the normal way. The experts who are giving of their time and expertise should now be given the time to get on with the job, in the normal way, and to present their conclusions when they are ready.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) repeatedly called the site an asset, but it was a heavily contaminated industrial site. Indeed the former Labour Member of Parliament for Redcar, Vera Baird, suggested it could cost up to £1 billion to clean up the site. It is now an asset, but only because of Ben Houchen’s actions.

Lee Rowley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one of the few facts that the hon. Member for Wigan left out of her contribution, in which there was no clarity about what she is actually alleging.
These are serious matters. Serious allegations have been made, and it is incumbent on us all to clarify the position as soon as possible, for the good of Tees Valley. The review we have set up will do that, and we look forward to it reporting in the usual way at the earliest opportunity. Members should welcome and support the review, and I hope against hope that, in the next two hours, they may still do that.

Julie Elliott: This is an important debate. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a month ago, and I stand here today unsatisfied at this Government’s progress on being transparent with the people of this country on such a crucial issue.
This debate is not only about the conduct of government, both regional and national, but about priorities, the economy, the cost of living and trust. It is a debate about hard-working communities in the north-east that are being let down by their elected representatives. The north-east has suffered the greatest cuts to public spending since the Conservative Government took power in 2010, through their programme of austerity and their abolition of our regional development agency, One North East, which focused economic regeneration across the region from Sunderland to Teesside—its abolition damaged our economic prospects.
The beauty parade of the levelling-up competitions since 2019 was exposed by the BBC “Panorama” programme last year for tilting investment to the wealthy Conservative seats of Richmond and Newark while places like Stockton and Billingham missed out. The dereliction of the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the then Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, in letting the Redcar steel site collapse in 2015 was a shocking contrast to the intervention under Labour in 2009, which allowed the site’s rebirth with SSI.
Conservative Governments under five successive Prime Ministers have undermined both private and public investment in the north-east of England, which is why the people of Tees Valley were entitled to hope that, despite abandoning steel on Teesside eight years ago, the Tories’ belated promise to develop the SSI site would be made good.
In Sunderland, we know the importance of investment, because it gave birth to Nissan and its advanced manufacturing supply chain. We know the benefits that industrial rejuvenation provides in terms of good jobs that are skilled, well-paid and vital to local pride. On Teesside, the site that has become known as Teesworks is rightly billed as the biggest industrial opportunity in Europe. A large-scale site, connected to the port, with good energy supplies and the experienced industrial workforce on Teesside is not just a regional opportunity for the people of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar, Hartlepool and the wider north-east; it should be an international opportunity for the UK.
That is what makes the details that have emerged about the activities of Ben Houchen and the South Tees Development Corporation so troubling. It is why this attempt by the Conservative Government to water down transparency and accountability is so damaging to the confidence that private investors need to have if Teesworks is going to be a success, as we all want it to be. It is why last month I asked the Prime Minister whether he or any of his Ministers had given commitments to BP, Equinor or any other companies about contracts at the Teesworks site. I was appalled by the triviality of his reply, when he asserted:
“Contracts at the site will be a commercial matter for the companies involved.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 334.]
We know already that interventions by STDC are shaking the confidence of outside investors. We need the confidence of an inquiry that only the NAO can provide, because we know that other issues in Tees Valley are already giving private investors cause for concern about their investments due to the behaviour of the Mayor and actors around the combined authority.
The Financial Times has done a superlative job of setting out the complicated issues around Teesworks. Another report by Jennifer Williams today about issues  with Mayor Ben Houchen’s approach to PD Ports suggests there are wider behavioural issues at stake. Its headline reads, “UK port accuses Ben Houchen of wasting public funds in legal action”, and, “Mayor accused of risking ‘the public purse and the reputation of Teesside’”. As the article states:
“PD Ports owns and operates Teesport, the country’s fifth-largest port by tonnage”.
It is an important asset for the north of England. Back in April 2021, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Mayor was
“mulling an audacious takeover of PD Ports”,
which is owned by Brookfield, and was seeking to “absorb” its container gateway. It is not for me to comment on a Conservative Mayor’s seeming addiction to nationalising economic assets, but since that article the issue has ended up in court.
Given the troubles at Teesworks, the Financial Times reports:
“Court papers filed by PD accused the STDC of foul play, claiming its chief operating officer at the time, Jerry Hopkinson, was told by then-STDC board member Paul Booth that the corporation’s intention was to buy the port ‘at a discount’ by denying access to its land and then ‘flip it to make a profit’.”
Mr Booth contests the account, while STDC itself says that the comments
“were made in a personal capacity”.
This is concerning. The problem that the people of Tees Valley and the country face is that there are clearly now a series of issues regarding the conduct of elected and appointed officials engaged with Tees Valley Combined Authority and STDC. These problems reflect troubling allegations at Teesworks.
The cavalier approach of Conservative Ministers and the Mayor to transparency and accountability is harming the investment prospects for Teesside. In case Ministers have forgotten, the rule of law stands at the cornerstone of our democracy. Not only are citizens entitled to know that the taxes they contribute will be spent well and that value is not being extracted from the public realm due to inappropriate dealings behind closed doors; businesses are entitled to know that their property cannot be simply nationalised by local Mayors to, as is suggested at STDC, “flip a profit”. The only way to end the doubts that investors and the public have about activities undertaken by Mayor Ben Houchen, TVCA, STDC and Teesworks is to ensure that there is a full investigation by the NAO. There can be no confidence in the pretence of an “independent” inquiry touted by a Secretary of State who has, in his own words, already found his Conservative colleagues innocent of all charges.
Given the economic situation in which this Government have left the country, we simply cannot allow more taxpayers’ money to be wasted, as it is here. That is why the Humble Address has been designed to enforce transparency and accountability on a Government who have, at every opportunity, tried to hide what they get up to and left hard-working taxpayers in the dark. Ministers have been involved in Teesworks from day one, so why has it taken the work of investigative journalists to bring this to light for the Government to realise that this merits an investigation at all? Is this wilful ignorance, or is it a fear of the public knowing what is really going on?
We have the covid inquiry, the hidden communications, the whole Boris Johnson Administration, and now this.

Rosie Winterton: Order. That is the second time the hon. Lady has referred to sitting Members by name. I know that it is complicated because there are former Prime Ministers and former Secretaries of State who can be referred to by name, but, otherwise, Members must be referred to by their constituency, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows.

Julie Elliott: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I and many other colleagues have noted, there is a way out of this for the Government. They can commit to the full National Audit Office investigation, which is so needed in an issue as important as this. They can let go of the idea of the Secretary of State picking the people he wants to carry out the investigation, as has happened with the investigation into the ecocide off the coast of Teesside, and let the NAO do its job, as it has the experience, capacity and independence to do this properly. There must be a reason why the Government do not want this to happen. I ask the Minister, as the Secretary of State is not in his place: why will he not support Labour’s call for a comprehensive, independent investigation by the NAO, so that we can get to the bottom of what has actually gone on? Does he know something that the rest of us do not? When the investigation takes place, can he assure the House that those who were engaged in the process will be able to speak freely and honestly, irrespective of any non-disclosure agreements in place? That is extremely important, because the investigation needs to be thorough, transparent, and, above all, trusted. I know that “trust” and “honesty” are not the buzzwords of this Government, and they are not the buzzwords of this process, but they need to be.

Jill Mortimer: We all know why we are here. This has all transpired because of allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). Interestingly, he will not repeat those allegations outside of this Chamber and the immunity that it provides. At the end of May, I listened to “World at One” in which the hon. Gentleman was asked directly about the accusations that he made in the Chamber. Hats off to him: he performed verbal gymnastic feats of which Olga Korbut would have been proud. I have never heard anybody evade answering a direct question quite so well. I shall stop complimenting him now.
Mayor Ben Houchen and the Teesworks board were perfectly open to a National Audit Office review. I must declare an interest here: I sit on the Public Accounts Committee and I have every faith in the NAO to perform that review. However, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities decided not to go down that route, and for good reason—it is completely understandable why it made that decision. It would be an extension of the powers of the NAO, giving it jurisdiction over local authorities, which it currently does not have, and that could set an unnecessary and regrettable precedent.
There is to be an independent inquiry, which will follow the rules laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, and that should be sufficient for everybody. Sadly, those on the Opposition Benches once again seem intent on spreading scurrilous rumours and baseless accusations for their own political ends. They know that casting a shadow of doubt over the Teesworks site will deter investors—investors who would provide jobs and grow  the economy throughout the region for our people. Labour Members once again want to keep the poor poor. They are the enemy of aspiration and the friend of misery, and only by keeping their big, red socialist boot on the throat of the electorate can they hope for re-election. Conservative Members choose to be positive and to support people into well-paid jobs. We seek only to bring good futures, regeneration, growth and opportunity to our region, a region that Labour has ignored and taken for granted for generations.

Rosie Winterton: I get the sense that there are quite strong feelings in this debate. I hope that everyone will bear in mind that we expect temperate and moderate language, and we expect the debate to be like that.

Sharon Hodgson: I want to raise three concerns in particular regarding Teesworks and Teesside. First, there are serious questions on the oversight of contracts that the Tees Valley Combined Mayoral Authority or its bodies have entered into on the land deal and other contracts relating to Teesworks, and the management of the project is risking its success. Secondly, there needs to be more scrutiny over the process by which contracts are won, not only at Teesworks, but at a sister structure in the airport. Thirdly, the Government’s model of mayoral development corporations lacks sufficient local democratic scrutiny and accountability checks.
I want to add to the genuine arguments already made, in good faith, by colleagues in support of a full NAO investigation into Teesworks. There are simply questions that only the NAO can find the answers to—with every stone we overturn on Teesside, a new list of questions appears. Colleagues have already described the deal, so I will not repeat the details, but there are clearly questions that remain unanswered.
How did the developers first know to buy the option to lease from Redcar Bulk Terminal Ltd in 2019? What due diligence was done on their credentials to take over operations for the largest brownfield site in Europe? How much money have they personally risked on the project? Why was there no procurement exercise conducted for the relationship and no contract published?
Then there are the side deals that colleagues have touched upon. Failing an NAO audit on the entire project, will the Government’s independent investigation look beyond the land deal to the project’s side deals? Take Teesworks Quay Ltd, for example, or the contractors taking immense profits from the sites, and how those deals came about.
Those questions are all important, because we want to know that the progress of the project is by the book and that no corners are being cut, even though potential issues with the progress of the project have gained significant attention in the last year. Mass marine die-offs continue to plague north-east beaches, a worker only just survived after an excavator fell into the river and it is reported that relationships with significant industrial partners have flatlined, antagonised by the Mayor’s legal action. But the public relations operation churns on, aggrandising speculative jobs—as we have heard again in this debate—and investment brought to the area, and painting a picture that just does not match the reality.
Coming to my second point, I am interested to know whether the investigation will scrutinise the process by which contracts have been won generally. Again, my concerns have come about because questions raised about the oversight of the projects have been brushed away, obstructed or avoided. Teesworks’ sister structure at the airport, part of the freeport, is another Tees Valley CMA asset that has received millions of pounds of public money. The same two private developers at Teesworks became joint venture partners in Teesside International Airport Business Park in March 2020. What tender or public process was conducted for that?
Since the airport has struggled to reap rewards from the runway, it has turned to the business park to bring profit. In March, it awarded its first contract for the business park to GMI Construction Group. GMI was recorded as having paid for the lobbying services of Recognition Services Ltd, whose director, Graham Robb, conveniently sits on the South Tees Development Corporation board and reportedly does the Mayor’s public relations, too. What was the significance of that relationship in the awarding of the contract to GMI? What tender process took place, and why will the Mayor not assure the public that due diligence took place? We need to address exactly what is going on in Teesside with that web of connected parties.
That points to my final concern on the whole governance model in the Tees Valley Combined Authority. It is only right that constituents in places with combined authorities should be able to hold local leaders accountable to the same standards as they can the Government here in Westminster, but almost every week, we hear new, disturbing reports out of Teesside that legitimately question the probity, decision-making and value for money across different wings of Ben Houchen’s combined authority, following painstaking investigation from highly respected journalists.
Why has the Mayor been able to push decisions through, under the radar, with little or no scrutiny? What oversight of all those decisions really takes place, and why are the public not allowed to see any of it? Why are STDC and the developers allowed to mark their own homework? Why are the people responsible for the performance of projects also the judges of their progress? These basic questions point to a serious flaw in governance.
We are not raising these concerns to talk down Teesside. In fact, protecting and future-proofing the projects is the reason why these matters must be raised today. The stakes are so incredibly high; we need the projects to succeed. That does not mean closing more doors to scrutiny. Local accountability has clearly been unable to address these concerns, and Government supervision, or lack of, has allowed for what could be a huge failure in industrial strategy that affects the people of Teesside and our green ambitions.
This is an opportunity to finally right any wrongs by giving full investigatory remit to a body with the powers and capacity to probe deep into what has happened, including by ensuring that officials who have previously worked as part of STDC, the freeport or a related public body are free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that may exist. From there, we can learn lessons so that local communities can better scrutinise their combined authority Mayors through an operational structure that prevents conflicts of interest and the secrecy that has been so damaging  to local politics and business relations on Teesside—maybe taking inspiration from the Welsh Government’s arrangements for Cardiff.
The Levelling Up Secretary knows that it is inevitable that this will all eventually come to light, so I implore him to allow a full NAO audit. If there is nothing to hide, why not open that door? For him to suggest that north-east colleagues are on a misinformation campaign is deeply disingenuous. Will he say the same of well-respected journalists, and news outlets such as the Financial Times, which are also asking these questions? I expect he will not.
I want these projects to be a success for Teesside and the wider north-east, which I care about deeply, but that should not mean that there are obstructions to finding out the truth. Selling a dream of success that does not match reality does not deliver that success to the people of Teesside. If the Government insist on proceeding with their own Department-led inquiry, it must answer the three concerns that I have laid out: why and how did the land deal and other contracts fall into private hands, what scrutiny is there of how wider contracts are won, and when will the Government remedy the gaps in oversight and accountability for the wider devolution ambition? Only once these questions have been addressed can we reassure Teesside communities that they are the priority, not private profit. Government obstruction without clear justification will only kick the can down the road, stalling any progress in the north-east. I urge the Government to reconsider their course of action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I remind Members that we still have a large number of speakers to get in before the wind-ups.

Simon Clarke: I am proud to speak today in support of Teesworks and our Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, as well as the process that the Government have put in place, of which more in a moment.
Teesside is being transformed, from our airport, saved after Labour let it drift to the brink of closure, to our town centres of Middlesbrough, Guisborough and Loftus benefiting from tens of millions of pounds of direct investment. We have the new mayoral development corporation to turbocharge the regeneration of Hartlepool. We have the Treasury’s northern campus in Darlington and we have the UK’s largest freeport on the Tees. Overshadowing, and indeed uniting, all of this is Teesworks, the largest brown-field remediation project in the country, and the beating heart of our industrial future. The site of the former Redcar steelworks was costing the taxpayer £1 a second as long as it stood idle. It is right that the Government and our Mayor have brought it back to life. Government investment of £246 million has been put in, but as we know, the cost of total remediation is some £482. 6 million, as independently assessed. That is the reason for the joint venture established with the private sector.
It is important to clarify exactly what has happened. The first point is that the site has never been a public asset. The private sector Teeswork partners brokered a deal to take back control of the land from the Thai banks. It brought the deal and the land to the South  Tees Development Corporation, not the other way round. That is why the Opposition’s talk of no public tendering process having taken place is such a red herring.
The public-private partnership was agreed, moreover, by the TVCA cabinet, the STDC board, the Department for Business and the Treasury. Bob Cook, the Labour leader of Stockton council, voted in favour. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) stated on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics” that he understood the reasons for a 50:50 split. A lot of revisionism is going on now.

Alex Cunningham: I have spoken to the leader of Stockton borough council and he has had no part in any decision relating to the transfer of those assets from the public to the private sector. He is a member of the combined authority, not a member of the STDC board. It is important that the right hon. Member recognises that.

Simon Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Mr Cook voted for this structure and he cannot change that vote.
There is no credible suggestion that wrongdoing has occurred. Teesworks is double audited, first by Mazars and then by Azets, two separate auditors. There is then an audit committee for Teesworks. Here we come to the truly jaw-dropping fact that that audit committee is chaired by none other than Councillor Matthew Storey, the leader of Middlesbrough Council’s Labour group and the head of the parliamentary office of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He chairs that audit committee —what concerns has he raised? He is part of the audit structure that is now being cast into doubt.
It is noteworthy that in the speech by the shadow Secretary of State we heard nothing that amounted to a substantive allegation. We heard a series of inferences and questions that amount to nothing more than the same tittle-tattle that has characterised this process, with the exception of the allegation of industrial-scale corruption that has been made but never substantiated, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows that he would be sued for libel if he repeated it.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm the rules regarding declarations of interest? If a Member has a declaration of interest on the register, should they not refer to it when they stand up and take part in debates in this House?

Nigel Evans: It is up to each individual Member to determine whether their declaration of interest should be made during a debate. Clearly, processes are available should a Member not do so and other Members believe that they should have.

Simon Clarke: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that no such interest exists, despite desperate attempts to insinuate to the contrary.
Who speaks for the Labour party in this debate? We have the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), clear that she is making no allegations, but we had the hon. Member for Middlesbrough making very pointed, very serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing. There is a yawning gulf between the two.
The next key point I wish to raise is about the process that the Government have adopted to set up the independent investigation that has been announced this afternoon. As the Minister set out very clearly at the Dispatch Box, that is the legal structure for investigating when a best-value investigation is triggered. The irony here, of course, is that the civil service does not believe that that threshold has been met and has advised Ministers to that effect. [Interruption.] I have spoken to Ministers about this point and, as Ministers have made clear, that is the case. It is not Ministers asserting that this threshold has not been met: the civil service does not believe that that standard has been met.
As both the former Secretary of State and the former Minister of State for Local Government, I can say with total assurance that this process is normal and straightforward. In his letter to Ben Houchen a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State set out why one would not want to seek to extend the remit of the NAO in the way that is being proposed. We have the long-standing, Labour-instigated system of commissioning these independent inquiries under the Local Government Act 1999. The key point here, of course, is that it is not just public confidence but investor confidence that is being undermined by the Labour party. It is doubly ironic, therefore, that we have never seen Labour calling for a similar process anywhere else— as we heard from the Minister, not even in Labour-run Liverpool when actual criminal wrongdoing had taken place. To add insult to injury, was the Labour party’s own investigation into its people’s conduct in Liverpool independently led? No: it was investigated by one of Labour’s own former MPs and a former council leader.
So we return to the purpose of this campaign—this vendetta. It is an attempt to systematically smear Ben Houchen, destroy Teesworks and make Teesside poorer. We have seen this movie before: earlier this year, not one but two independent reviews led by some of the most eminent scientists in the country thoroughly rebutted the idea that marine deaths were anything to do with the dredging at Teesworks, but just moments ago, we heard the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) again dredging up those allegations—you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—knowing full well that they are baseless. Labour will seize on any excuse and take any chance to try to talk down my region. I am sick to death of it, and so are the people of Teesside, because it is not in the public interest: it is in the Labour party’s interest. That is why Labour pursues these wrecking campaigns.
Teesside has been rescued from a cycle of secular decline with some bold leadership and private sector investment, and the public back it. That is why, in 2021, Ben Houchen received 73% of the vote to carry on with his mission. I ask shadow Front Benchers to confirm whether they will respect the impartiality of the senior officials from the local government family who have now been tasked with conducting this investigation, and I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to confirm that in his speech, too. If they do not respect the integrity and impartiality of those officials, why do they not do so? What is wrong with the investigation that has been instigated this afternoon?
I directly challenge the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on this point, too—if it is established by that inquiry that his allegations of “industrial-scale corruption” are  baseless, as I firmly believe them to be, will he come to this House and withdraw the allegations that he has made here? If he does not, it will amount to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary privilege that I can conceive of, and I believe that he should be ordered to this House by Mr Speaker in the event that he declines to do so.
This is a cynical, shameless, seedy attempt to talk down Teesside, to imply wrongdoing and to damage the interests of the very deprived communities that I am proud to represent. I look forward to the report of the independent inquiry. I will be voting against Labour’s motion today. It is time to draw a line in the sand against this game playing by the Labour party. Labour Members have done it before—they have done it on the crabs, they have done it with the Teesside police and crime commissioner, and they have done it to the former Mayor of Middlesbrough. They know full well what they are doing. They abuse this place to make allegations, rely on others to amplify them outside and then feed off the clouds of suspicion and miasma of doubt that they create. All they have to offer is slander, negativity and decline—all the hallmarks of their toxic legacy on Teesside. Enough.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: There are seven Members wanting to take part in the debate, and we are going to do wind-ups of 10 minutes each. As the House can see, we have just under an hour for those seven Members. If people can focus their contributions so that everybody can get equal time, that would be really good.

Alex Cunningham: Secrecy is a disease that is threatening a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the people of Teesside—an opportunity of thousands of high-quality jobs and a share of the dividend from hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. It is secrecy that drives the suspicions, questions and doubts about how the Tory Tees Valley Mayor, Ministers and their cronies do business not just at the Teesworks site, but at our publicly owned Teesside International airport, which continues to lose millions of pounds and has twice been bailed out to the tune of £10 million using taxpayers’ money.
Tomorrow will be the 13th anniversary of my maiden speech in this House. I was happy that day to tell the world how proud I was to be an adopted Teessider, and that remains very much the case today. We have a wealth of resources, from our people to our amazing cultural offer. We have our beautiful countryside, our coast and our amazing industrial base, which has created so much of our country’s wealth, but we deserve so much more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and I have been consistent in demanding openness and comprehensive scrutiny of decisions and the use of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by the Tees Mayor and his close-knit band of supporters and partners. The fact that several national newspapers, led by Private Eye magazine, have made front-page news of how business is done on the mayoral projects on Teesside warrants a completely independent  investigation not by a group appointed and favoured by the Secretary of State, but by the National Audit Office, which has confirmed that it could do one if given the green light by Ministers. The Tees Mayor is up for it; why are the Government not?
Similarly, I hope to see Ministers withdraw their opposition to the inquiry proposed by the Select Committee on Business and Trade, which would have the power to scrutinise in a way so far denied by all those concerned. It could also summon people here to give evidence. I have had all manner of concerns over the years as the Mayor has been aided and abetted by Ministers as senior as the Prime Minister himself, hiding not just the decisions made about the airport and the Teesworks site, but how those decisions were reached, who was involved and who was excluded.
I do not know whether you have heard of the Darwin’s bark spider, Mr Deputy Speaker. It weaves the largest and most dense webs in the world. They can be as large as 28,000 sq cm, but that spider has nothing on the Tees Mayor when it comes to creating dense webs of secrecy, with organisations, companies and even charities created in an attempt to dodge full and proper scrutiny of how he and his mates do business and spend public money on what is referred to as the UK’s biggest levelling-up project.
As has been alluded to, things came to a head last year when a record posted with Companies House showed that the once public asset that is the Teesworks site is now 90% owned by a small group of local businessmen, the shares having been transferred to them by the Tees Mayor and the board of the South Tees Development Corporation, but we still do not know why such a decision was taken and who exactly was party to it. For certain, it was not taken by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, made up of the elected Mayor and the elected leaders of the five local authorities. They were not even consulted, as far as I know.
The Mayor thinks he had to do business with two men in particular, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney, because they owned what can only be described as a ransom strip of land on the Teesworks site and they would take on the liability of the hundreds of millions still needed to remediate the site. I have an issue with both his reasons, or perhaps “excuses” is a better word. The Tees Mayor took on the might of the Thai banks, which owned most of the site after SSI walked out on Teesside and ended over 100 years of steel production. He decided he would go as far as a compulsory purchase order, and to his credit, he acquired the site for the public. Why, then, did he not take similar action against the two local businessmen who were holding the public to ransom? He will not answer that question, but perhaps the Minister can help.
The Minister may also be able to help over the costs of the remediation of the site. The Government get no accolades for allowing the steel industry to die on Teesside, but I do give them credit for agreeing to fund the remediation of the site so it could be fully developed. During his short-lived tenure as the Government investment tsar for the Tees Valley, Lord Michael Heseltine—I am quoting him directly—said:
“The money to clean up the site will be what it costs. No-one knows what the condition of the site is and although there have been estimates, they are estimates based on guess work. So it is much better to make it clear”—
and I agree that it is much better to make it clear that—
“central government will pay the clean-up costs and underwrite them whatever the bill comes to.”
Successive promises were made by Government Minsters that the Treasury would fund that work, so there was never any need to find private capital.
We have heard the Tees Mayor claim that he may have been naive in some of his dealings, but never did anything illegal. That may well be the case, but that naivety has cost our communities on Teesside the chance to share the dividends from the site and the public money invested in it. Sadly, however, we go back to the word “secrecy”. Were other companies and organisations considered for partnering with the Teesworks site? Were other offers made for the land? I have heard of one, and that was increased. What were the criteria and business case for selecting partners? It is all very much a secret, and none of the decision-making bodies is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
I do not want to repeat all the accusations laid at the doors of the Mayor and his friends by the FT, The Times, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian, but I do hope we can get a fully independent investigation by the NAO into the wholesale transfer of assets, including the tens of millions of pounds of on-site scrap, to the private sector. That includes the Private Eye claim—a claim yet to be denied by the Mayor or anyone else—that Orion Kotrri, Mr Musgrave’s son-in-law, has been running the scrap operation. The South Tees Development Corporation has refused to say why he was selected for the role, who employs him or how he is paid. It is no secret that the business is being kept in the family.
The media and others are right that there are critical questions over how a bunch of local businessmen could already have extracted around £50 million in cash and assets from Britain’s biggest levelling-up project before a single business has begun operating on the site, and apparently without investing themselves. Perhaps all those concerned with the scrap should meet the challenge from The Northern Echo, which has said:
“There must be a ledger showing how much scrap has been sold which can put the facts in the open and enable people to judge whether there is any truth in the rumour”—
that is, the rumour of poor management.

Simon Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Cunningham: I will not.
Is the Minister aware of any such ledger of what are public assets, of where they have gone, and of what cost and value? Private Eye has established that decisions have been pushed through a board of the South Tees Development Corporation dominated by Houchen placemen and women in unrecorded discussions. Surely Ministers will recognise that they have some cleaning up to do. All we are seeking is for the truth to come to light. If the claims are not true, why is the Mayor not coming forward to publish all the relevant documents? Why is he not challenging, through the courts if necessary, all these media claims that he simply dismisses?
I would love to see the promises made by the Tees Mayor come to fruition. I want our communities to benefit from the jobs, but from much more than that  too. Just as London boroughs benefit from the massive council tax base, those on Teesside could benefit from the dividends from Teesworks, and goodness knows we need it. Our community in the Tees Valley faces soaring levels of hardship compared with the national average. Research released on Monday by the End Child Poverty coalition showed that, in Stockton-on-Tees alone, over 40,000 children are living below the poverty line.
The picture is the same across all of the constituencies of Members from Teesside represented in the Chamber, but time and again we have seen the Mayor and his Government fail our area. They failed to do anything to retain steelmaking on Teesside. Despite claims of help on the way, they allowed our historic and world-leading Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company to go to the wall, with the loss of hundreds of highly skilled jobs. When the Sirius mine got into cash-flow difficulties, the Mayor promised help, but his Government brokered a deal for a multinational company to take over, leaving thousands of local investors with very little. Many of them were former steelworkers who had invested their redundancy pay in the venture. Who knows what could have been done if business had been handled in a different way on Teesside, with public benefit being the focus.
We need assets on Teesside. We need investment. We need to know what is going on with people’s existing assets and how they are being disposed of. If there are huge profits to be made from Teesworks—the scrap alone is said to be worth £100 million—surely they should be going into our communities for development and quality services and not almost exclusively into the pockets of private companies. We need answers. We need openness and transparency. We need to see an end to this secrecy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I work out that if people keep to roughly eight minutes or so, everybody will get a fair go.

Paul Howell: As a Tees Valley MP, I am pleased to speak in this debate that is so relevant to many of my constituents. I have to admit that I am baffled by the Opposition’s choice of motion for the debate. If I were them, the last thing that I would want to do is spend hours discussing the lack of investment in the north-east by a previous Labour Government. It is only under a Conservative Government that we have started levelling up. The Opposition’s demand for the National Audit Office to investigate is also surprising, given their resounding silence when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) ordered an inquiry into Liverpool, where actual corruption was taking place.
Labour has 17 Opposition days, which are meant to be used to discuss important issues, yet it has chosen to use today to throw mud at a successful levelling-up story. Labour could have used today to address the country’s priorities, which the Prime Minister set out in his five pledges. It could have talked about halving inflation, which has started to fall. It could have talked about economic growth, as recession is likely to be avoided: the OECD predicts growth of 0.3% this year  and 1% next year. It could have talked about falling national debt, with borrowing forecast to fall every year according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It could have talked about reducing waiting lists. The figure for patients waiting over 18 months peaked in September 2021 at 125,000; in March this year, it was 10,737. Labour could have talked about stopping small boats. Compared with last year, crossings are down by 20%.
Has Labour chosen any of those subjects or talked about any of its own plans? No. Could that be because the news from the shadow Chancellor is that she wants to avoid unfunded spending commitments? Well, that would mean that Labour Members would have nothing to say. Could it be that even their supportive unions call their policies naive and say that they lack intellectual rigour and thinking? Where does that leave Labour? Back to the mudslinging and talking down places like the north-east.
I am sorry, but I am proud of the Conservative-led transition of the Tees Valley. Teesworks is an excellent example of an industrial area that was neglected until a Conservative politician, Ben Houchen, came along and decided to do something about it. I remind the Chamber that doing nothing with the steelworks would not have been a neutral act, either. Even standing idle, it cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds every week, while in 2015 unions warned that clearing the site to repurpose it for housing or industrial developments would cost as much as £1 billion.
The site required so much work to become usable again that its value was in the negative hundreds of millions. Until recently, the joint venture appeared to have a level of cross-party support among local politicians. For example, the Labour leader of Stockton Council voted for it, and the independent leaders of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland all approved it. A wide range of people and organisations in both the private and public sectors have been involved in the development of Teesworks, which is another reason why I find it difficult to believe that there could be some alleged secret tie-up to swindle taxpayers, as seems to be suggested.
It remains a clear and obvious fact that although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alleges industrial-scale corruption when he is in this place and enjoying the protection of parliamentary privilege, despite many requests he has declined to repeat those allegations where he would have to defend them. Can I also remind him that another great success story in the Tees Valley is the resurgence of Teesside airport, driven again by the Tees Valley Mayor, after its almost total demise under the control of Labour-led councils prior to his election? The airport is now enjoying further growth in both passenger numbers and as part of the Tees Valley freeport, delivering economic growth and employment.
We have already seen remarkable progress as a result of the joint venture partnership, including the demolition plan that is two years ahead of schedule. Less than £250 million of public money has been invested in the site, yet it has already secured over £2 billion-worth of private sector investment. I must also mention in passing the 2,750 long-term jobs that are being created through this project. Job creation is always appreciated, but it is all the more important in this case, where 1,700 jobs  were lost with the closure of the steelworks. Now that the site is doing well, Labour has decided to use it as another opportunity to talk down the north. Considering this was the first mayoral development corporation outside London, I think the record is pretty good.
The motion is about accountability and scrutiny of Teesworks, so we ought to note that Teesworks is double audited by Mazars and Azets, whose audit is then further audited by Mazars. Surely, if corrupt or illegal decisions had been taken, they would have been spotted by at least one of the accountancy firms, rather than going unnoticed? The Mayor, as has been said, requested that the National Audit Office become involved as a result of the accusations, but the Secretary of State decided that a more appropriate step would be to commission an independent review to consider the specific allegations.
As an aside, facts are always facts. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) alleged that—[Interruption]—Martin Corney’s son, sorry, had benefited. That is just incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and correct the record, that is a choice for him to make. Silence.
The Secretary of State’s determination was that it would be inappropriate for the NAO to examine individual local government bodies. The fact that the Mayor requested NAO engagement would strongly support his contention that there is genuinely no corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.
I am disappointed that the Labour motion wastes parliamentary time and once again attempts to talk down progress in the north-east. It reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition, when it was announced that the Treasury was coming to Darlington, stating that it was not levelling up, it was giving up. With the success of Teesworks, Teesside airport, the Darlington Economic Campus and so on and so on, I for one am proud of what the Conservatives are doing to level up the Tees Valley. I hope that when we get a north-east mayor for the LA7, they will also be a Conservative and deliver in the same way that Ben Houchen has delivered, meaning that all my Sedgefield constituents can be as well served as that portion who reside in the Tees Valley.

Nigel Evans: That was under eight minutes, so thank you.

Andy McDonald: Much of the debate has been targeted at me and there has been a request for details of allegations. I trust I will be given the opportunity to set those out.
I am grateful to my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench for giving this issue such prominence today. I want to start by paying particular tribute to Richard Brooks of Private Eye. Without his amazing forensic tenacity and persistent investigative journalism over many, many months, we would not be having this debate today. Similarly, Jen Williams of the Financial Times has gone to the trouble of conducting in-depth investigations and has raised many pertinent questions, and The Yorkshire Post so courageously refused to be bullied or silenced. The BBC and many others have taken note of these matters. It is reassuring that investigative journalism is alive and well.
It is a complex web that has been woven and it requires significant attention to try to understand what has gone on. I share the bewilderment of those on my Front Bench that the Secretary of State is determined not to request that the NAO investigate these matters in full.
The core background to this saga is founded in the painful post-privatisation collapse of steelmaking on Teesside, which came to an end in 2015. It has left a massive hole in the local landscape and economy. The Tees Valley Combined Authority was established in 2016 under the Chancellorship of George Osborne, when the Labour Tees Valley local authorities, hamstrung by austerity, agreed to set up the new body, principally to focus on economic development and regeneration, transport and skills, led locally by Councillor Sue Jeffrey, then the leader of Redcar and Cleveland, Dave Budd, then the elected Mayor of Middlesborough, and others. In May 2017, Ben Houchen was elected as Tees Valley Mayor and promised to bring back steelmaking to Teesside. Clearly that has not happened.
The South Tees Development Corporation came into being in August 2017, its principal task to assemble various pieces of land and bring them into public ownership to facilitate development, with the levering in of private investment a key element. People like Sir Alan Cockshaw, a most highly respected figure in the business world, Steve Gibson, the chair of Middlesbrough football club and Bulkhaul, and Paul Booth of Sabic all served on the STDC board and put in many hours of unpaid time—and, indeed, flew to Thailand at their own expense to further the negotiations with SSI’s creditors to free up and secure the land.
The plan of the original board for development of the site was to remediate one parcel of land, develop it, let it, and then utilise that income to fund the next parcel, and so on. In effect, the outcome would have been a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside. All that changed with Ben Houchen’s re-election in 2021. Those hard-working and generous board members were sacked by Ben Houchen and a new team brought in. While the funding was allocated from central Government—from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to be applied over three years from 2020-21 through to 2022-23, running into hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government made it clear that they were not in favour of sustaining an equitable public-private partnership beyond those committed moneys and that the private sector should take it on. So that was, and still is, the determinant ideology, and the end of any thought of a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside.
In the following rush, these concerning events have unravelled. It would seem that the private developers were very smart and in the right place at the right time. They seized on the opportunity when SSI got into financial difficulties and twigged that SSI was prepared to sell a particular asset in an attempt to assist in addressing its own financial woes. They secured an option to acquire a lease of some 70 acres of what was then SSI land not far from the Redcar bulk terminal. That was sold to Musgrave and Corney by SSI for some  half a million pounds. In effect, they became the putative default partner in what was to manifest itself later as Teesworks Ltd.
Other parties were interested in partnering with STDC, but they had no chance. There was no tendering process or proper procurement; there was no competition. Any inquiry will need to explain how these property developers came to acquire this key part of the site when the Tees Valley Combined Authority was pressing for a compulsory purchase order to buy the entire site.
More interesting things then happened in 2019. Mr Musgrave formed DCS Industrial Ltd, which was the vehicle for his Teesworks shareholding, and what we now describe as the SeAH site was acquired by STDC through its subsidiary company, South Tees Developments Ltd, from the former occupant, Tata Steel, for £12 million. This is the site upon which SeAH, the South Korean wind turbine company, will house its factory. The construction of the South Bank quay was made possible with a £107 million loan to STDC from the Government’s UK Infrastructure Bank.
On 29 January 2020, Ben Houchen reported to STDC about the compromise of the compulsory purchase order process. But board papers reveal that in early 2020, STDC recognised the risks of getting into bed with Musgrave and Corney. Its business case for the taxpayer cash 18 months earlier noted the
“joint venture partners lack of experience on size, complexity and hazards associated with the South Tees site”
and the
“differing governance requirements between joint venture partner background and public sector requirement impacting procurement”.
Despite that, in March 2020 STDC formed Teesworks as a 50:50 joint venture with companies controlled by Chris Musgrave, Martin Corney and Corneys’s father-in-law Ian Waller, all of whom paid nothing for their shares. I trust that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) will correct the record as far as Mr Waller is concerned.
STDC stated at the time that the joint venture company, Teesworks, would pay market value for the land it elected to buy. That changed fundamentally a little later. In early 2020, options were given by STDC for Teesworks to acquire freeholds from STDC. In August 2021, Gary Macdonald, the director of finance at STDC, reported to the board that there was now only a five-year window for development, which meant that there had to be a quick use of Government funds and
“a transfer of significant risk and rewards”
to the joint venture partners
“to incentivise the required pace of delivery”.
Those are the very people that STDC had expressed such doubts about just 18 months before.
That all begs the question, what value for money assessments did BEIS, DLUHC or the Treasury perform on this project, into which such vast sums of public money have been sunk? We should be able to see the Green Book calculations for all the different stages, ranging from the initial 50:50 arrangements through to the change to 90:10 in favour of the JV partners. In November 2021, the shareholdings of Musgrave, Corney and others via their various companies were increased from 50% to 90%. Again, they paid nothing for that increase in their equity stakes. Remarkably, they then  secured the major options to buy any parcel of land on the site. Presumably, the quid pro quo was that they would stump up when the public cash ran out. As STDC put it, the extra shares were
“in return for Teesworks taking on the future development of the site, together with the net future liabilities in preparing the site for tenants”.
The inquiry will need to see the details of the meetings between Houchen, Musgrave and Corney on all those matters. What did they discuss—and when—about the initial JV and the variation to a 90:10 split and the associated changes, such as options to buy land? Why were the share classes of Teesworks Ltd changed at the same time as the 90:10 split, meaning that no dividends have to be paid to the public sector, and can be paid only at the board’s discretion?
While the split was 50:50, the position was that Teesworks would pay market rates for the land it opted to buy. A freedom of information reply from STDC indicates that once the ratio was changed to 90:10, land acquired from South Tees Developments Ltd could be appropriated at a nominal sum of £1 an acre.
Teesworks did exercise its options to buy the freeholds constituting the SeAH site, but that was not known to the public until Private Eye revealed HM Land Registry’s entries dated 11 October 2022, showing that the river frontage, known as “new quay phase 1”, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the sum of £16.27, and VAT in the sum of £2.71. It also revealed further Land Registry entries dated 16 December, which show that a colossal parcel of industrial land known as “plot b south bank”, excluding the river frontage quay, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the stated sum of £96.79, excluding VAT.
Ben Houchen has said that the true consideration paid by Teesworks is actually £15 million, despite those Land Registry records saying otherwise. Apparently, the lower figures were adopted for tax reasons. If that is right, I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have something to say about it, as might His Majesty’s Land Registry. If inaccurate or misleading figures are put on transfer documents, there are usually consequences. I hope the inquiry will examine those matters, as it should.
When will this mysterious £15 million be paid? In one of his many intemperate media rants, Mr Houchen claimed that the lands we are talking about have “never” been in the public sector, and that has been repeated here today. Really? Given the audit trail and what the Land Registry documents say, it is difficult to see how he could possibly sustain such an argument. I confess to feeling somewhat sorry for his officials, who have to sweep up behind him to sort out his inaccurate stories, but it still does not wash.
There then followed a series of transactions. Teesworks retained the freehold, but leased its 90-acre site to a private investor, now known to be Macquarie, the Australia-based global financial services company, for a peppercorn rent, for which Macquarie paid Teesworks a lump sum of £70 million to £80 million. In turn, TVCA, the taxpayer, leased the land from Macquarie, the investor, for an inflation-linked £3.65 million per annum for 40 years. TVCA then sub-let the land to SeAH for £4.3 million per annum. That means 90% of the £70 million to £80 million will be going to Musgrave,  Corney, Waller and their associate Chris Harrison, who have 45%, 21%, 19% and 5% shares in Teesworks respectively. That is a staggering £65 million-plus instant payday for the Teesworks joint venture partners.
While Teesworks is the freeholder for both sites, a clause in the transfer agreements ensures that the publicly owned South Tees Developments Ltd retains responsibility for environmental liabilities arising from hazardous substances. So Messrs Musgrave and Corney are not, according to that document, liable for cleaning up the site. The concern is that these property developers, who have never engaged in anything comparable to this undertaking, have become rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, all with the benefit of public moneys and opportunities.
Then there is the scrap. There was an agreement between STDC and Teesworks that as the by-product of the clearance and remediation works on the site, the proceeds from the scrap metal would be shared. There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metal on the site—approximately 500,000 tonnes in all. Up to now, a total of £94 million of valuable equipment, metals and other materials have been taken off site, weighed or otherwise. The sale proceeds are shared between STDC and Teesworks, with around £45 million going to Musgrave, Corney et al. Does the Minister believe that that represents good value for the taxpayer, who only three years ago owned all the metal on the site? Can he explain what is happening to the rest of it, which is estimated to be valued at up to £120 million?
What was there by way of a tendering or procurement process? Again, as was revealed by Private Eye, running the scrap operation is a man called Orion Kotrri, who just happens to be married to Martin Corney’s daughter. Any inquiry will need to ask how Mr Kotrri was hired, what his qualifications are for the job, whether that job was advertised and who employs him. Incredibly, we have now seen footage of Ben Houchen on a “trade mission” to meet the Albanian Prime Minister and the Mayor of Tirana, along with Martin Corney and Mr Corney’s Albanian scrap metal dealer son-in-law. We need to understand why they were present, given the visit was billed as a trade mission about international co-operation in travel and education. What did Mr Corney and his son-in-law have to do with that?
And then there is security. There is a fire raging at Teesworks right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the injury caused to the man who fell into the river, and let us not forget that two men died in the process of remediating the site. NE Security Ltd got the contract, initially worth £2.4 million, to protect the site, and then, a few months later, a further two-year contract worth £3 million. There are certainly some colourful characters involved, as has been reported by Private Eye, including those with a history of insolvency who owe HMRC £1.5 million, including an estimated £1.4 million to the anti-tax avoidance unit. Let us not overlook the proprietor’s son, who is in charge of health and safety on site, who has been given a prison sentence of 11 years and eight months for his part in running a drugs racket that stretched from Liverpool to Teesside. Both, of course, now have freeports. You could not make this up, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the stuff of the movies.
Much criticism has been levelled at me for speaking up about these issues. I have to say to critics of my use of parliamentary privilege that they really must understand  that I will not be bullied, and that the use of privilege in this place is cherished and should not be derided. It is an important part of our democracy, and it is there so that Members of Parliament can raise well-founded concerns—as I have demonstrated today and on previous occasions—without fear or favour. So I ask those critics to grow up. They may or may not be advocates of SLAPPs, but they should be careful about embracing the concept of lawsuits being used to censor and silence critics.
As for the charge of being anti-business or “talking Teesside down”—a charge that is regularly levelled against me and against the Labour party—it is nonsense. Since the day I first set foot in this place I have been advocating the advancement of green industries, along with my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Not only are these industries critical to saving our planet; they are a key factor in bringing good, well-paid, secure, unionised jobs to Teesside, a region that desperately needs those jobs and is ideally placed, both industrially and geologically, to pave the way not only for hydrogen industries, but for carbon capture, utilisation and storage and so much more.
That is why the behaviour of the Tees Valley Mayor is so distressing. While my critics are still obsessing about me, I have to spell it out: businesses can read. Whether I say these things or not, these concerns are widespread, and if anything and anyone is undermining the confidence of investors, it is the reckless conduct of the Tories’ blue- eyed-boy in the north, Ben Houchen. If they really care about how public moneys are spent, and if they are truly as pro-business as they say they are, this Government must abide by their own declared strictures of “integrity, professionalism, and accountability”. They should wake up and smell the coffee, and join me in ensuring that these matters are fully investigated, and corrected, before it is too late, because if they do not, a Labour Government will.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: As I said earlier, the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm. Four Members are trying to catch my eye, so according to my maths, they have just over five minutes each if they want to use equal amounts of time.

Matt Vickers: Having lived my entire life in Teesside, I know the challenges that it has faced, and I know the difference that being home to the UK’s first and biggest freeport will make in bringing investment and jobs to my area. It will create incredible opportunities for people to take up the jobs of the future in green technology and energy for generations to come. I understand that it will also provide a huge cash boost for local councils, with unprecedented revenue generated from business rates with the potential to turbocharge local services. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council alone is set to receive as much as £30 million a year from 2026, and there is a hell of a lot more to come.
This is probably the largest levelling-up and remediation project in the country. Eight years ago the Redcar steelworks on the site closed, which caused devastation across Teesside, with 1,700 job losses. The huge site remained redundant, a scar on our community, and that redundant site was costing the taxpayer £13 million a year: yes, that is £1 for every second. The former Member of Parliament for Redcar suggested that it would cost up to £1 billion to clear the site. That has been done, and £246 million of public money has gone into the project, which has so far secured £2 billion pounds in private sector investment. On a site that caused so much heartache and pain, this project has already created 2,725 long-term jobs, and in the longer term it looks likely to create a total of 20,000 with the potential for a further 4,000 at the new airport business park. That is 24,000 great jobs that could make a huge difference to the lives of youngsters growing up in Stockton, Thornaby, Ingleby Barwick, Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Billingham and Middlesbrough, and not only are there jobs; the training is coming too, with the new Teesworks Skills Academy, as well as further opportunities being opened up in local colleges. These jobs and investments are a huge part of a bigger picture that has put Teesside back on the map, from the Darlington economic campus bringing senior civil service jobs and decision making to Teesside to saving Teesside airport, hooking up my area with the world and all the investors it has to offer. Teesside is on the up.
As well as benefiting from this and the potentially huge revenues that will come to my local council from the freeports business park at the airport, Stockton South is seeing unprecedented investment, including in a renewed railway station for Eaglescliffe; investment in high streets in town centres in Stockton, Thornaby and Yarm to bring back pride of place and support local businesses; a new purpose-built vocational training facility to open doors, opportunities, chances and choices for young people; and much, much more.
But there are always those who will talk down our area, deterring and jeopardising investments. They are more concerned about party politics than the interests of local people, and they lack the ambition to believe that we can do more on Teesside. When it came to the Mayor saving our airport after the complete and utter disgrace of the way it was cared for by Labour authorities, my Labour predecessor said that it was “fantasy politics” and that we should draw a line under the idea that anyone would buy back the airport. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that there was “no credibility” to the plan and that we would never see the money that was required. Well, with ambition and drive, Ben went on to save our airport and as the months go by, it continues to see more destinations and passengers added to its offering, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member. Now, thanks to its freeport status, the new airport business park is expected to create a further 4,000 jobs. Opponents are desperate to talk down our area, using parliamentary privilege to make comments that they are unwilling to repeat outside this place.
The decisions around the site, its ownership and its liabilities have gone through the combined authority cabinet, on which my Labour council leader—who I understand was previously employed by the hon. Member for Stockton North—sits. I understand that he raised  no concerns about the proposal and that he in fact voted for the joint venture. Yes, the hon. Member for Stockton North’s former employee, the Labour leader of our local council, voted for the joint venture. Similarly—there is a bit of a theme here—the Labour group leader in Middlesbrough, who I understand might also by employed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), chairs the authority’s audit committee and never raised a single concern about the venture.
Teesworks is, as we have heard, heavily audited by two firms with a double audit. Moreover, the use of £246 million of public money has already been investigated and reviewed by the National Audit Office, which found it to be properly used in line with the business case. I think it is fair for people to make legitimate criticisms over the direction of the site, but what we have seen is politically motivated baseless smears, insinuation, tinfoil hats and mud throwing, with allegations of impropriety that people are unwilling to state outside of parliamentary privilege. It is wrong to play politics with something so important to the prospects of our area when unprecedented investment and jobs are on the line.
I have found that the door to the combined authority is always open and that it is willing to answer questions from me and my constituents. The independent review commissioned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in line with established practice—I think Labour established that practice—will provide yet another opportunity for questions to be asked and answered. It will also allow Members of this House to put forward any evidence, if indeed they have any. The tinfoil hats and politically motivated smears from the Opposition have real consequences for the people that I represent. They deter and jeopardise investment, jobs, opportunities and the huge rates revenue that my council will benefit from. This is a huge opportunity for Teesside and it is time for my Labour neighbours to get behind it and work with our phenomenal Tees Valley Mayor so that he can continue to deliver incredible change, investment and jobs for Teesside.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: The wind-ups will start at 20 minutes to 7.

Ian Lavery: I start my brief contribution by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on his forensic representation of this murky saga at Teesworks. The abuse and attacks will not deter him from unearthing the answers, as we can see from his fantastic speech. People need to back off and treat this issue extremely seriously. I give thanks and credit to Private Eye and the Financial Times for their fantastic journalism.

Simon Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lavery: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman says whether he or his party will seek recompense from Private Eye, the Financial Times and, perhaps, The Northern Echo for libel.

Simon Clarke: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman clarified that every single person cited in that Financial Times report, on which so much credence is being placed, is a Labour politician.

Ian Lavery: I was very gracious in giving way, and the right hon. Gentleman did not even answer the question. I think it is fair to say that the answer is no.
I also give credit to The Northern Echo. Despite its commercial considerations, and in the best traditions of that newspaper, it has put public duty above all other interests. It has published nine important questions, which are worth putting on the record.
The central allegation is that Musgrave and Corney have made £45 million from Teesworks in three years without investing any of their own money. By contrast, the taxpayer has put in £260 million, plus a £107 million loan. However, Teesworks says it has acquired a site that requires £483 million of remediation work, so it is a huge liability. Will the inquiry explain how much Musgrave and Corney have invested in the site? How much will they be required to invest in the site, and what is the business case for Teesworks raising the £200 million-plus that is required to complete the remediation?
Musgrave and Corney’s entry point into the development was through their acquisition of part of the bulk terminal site in 2019. Will the inquiry explain how those two private investors came to acquire this key site when the combined authority was pressing for a compulsory purchase order to buy the entire site?
Musgrave and Corney’s involvement has never been tested on the open market. Should there have been a public tendering process to find investors or firms to provide security for the site? That has been mentioned by virtually every speaker in this debate.
There is said to be 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal on the site. Sales have so far raised £90 million, with £45 million going to Musgrave and Corney. Does this represent good value for the taxpayer, who only three years ago owned all of this scrap? What is happening to the rest of the scrap on the site, estimated to be worth up to £120 million?
In August 2019, Musgrave and Corney’s stake in Teesworks was increased from 50% to 90%, apparently to speed up work so that the site could take advantage of time-limited tax breaks to create the freeport. Why, given the huge amount of publicity surrounding Teesworks, did their increased ownership not become public knowledge until December 2019, when there was a filing at Companies House?
The Northern Echo has posed a number of other questions, and it deserves so much credit for want it has done on this murky situation at Teesworks on Teesside.
I will conclude simply by saying that transparency, clarity, accountability, integrity and scrutiny are all very important in a democratic society. They all seem to be really lacking at Teesworks in Teesside. Show the people of Teesside the respect that they deserve, for heaven’s sake. Call in the NAO, as the Mayor and the Select Committee Chair are saying, to lead this inquiry.

Ashley Dalton: In autumn 2021, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on a visit to Teesside, said:
“If you want to see what levelling up looks like, come to Teesside.”
So let us have a look. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been invested to bring forward local regeneration and jobs creation. The Tees Valley Mayor says that £2 billion of private sector investment has been leveraged and that almost 3,000 jobs have been created. What we do not yet know is how the joint venture partners in Teesworks were selected, why they were selected, and how or if any other potential joint venture partners had the chance to express an interest in being selected.
What outputs projects may have delivered is not the subject of this debate. What matters here is whether this is value for money, who is benefiting and how. It seems to have gone quite well for the joint venture partners. In the space of a few years, they have gone from having a 50% stake in the company to having a 90% stake. According to the Financial Times, they have also received £45 million in dividends and, as far as we can tell, they have not had to invest any of their own money in the project yet. The initial share transfer of 50% took place without any public tender process; the decision to transfer a further 40% stake also took place without any public tender process.
None of that is sure-fire evidence of anything untoward having happened. However, although we cannot demonstrate that anything untoward has taken place, there is inadequate transparency and accountability to give the people of Teesside, and taxpayers across the country, any confidence whatever that their money and their assets have not been inappropriately or unfairly spent.
I spent 25 years as an officer in local government and it was impossible to buy a ream of paper without a transparently awarded procurement framework, never mind appoint regeneration partners and transfer public assets worth millions of pounds. In my personal experience, the procurement and partnership rules in local government, and the need for open and transparent public tender processes and procedures, often draw groans of frustration from officers. However, it is also my personal experience that local government officers are acutely aware of the responsibility upon them not only to spend public money appropriately, but to be explicitly seen to do so.
Arguably, Teesside is the Government’s beacon of levelling up. South Tees Development Corporation was the first ever mayoral development corporation to be set up outside London. More recently, the Tees Valley Mayor has been entrusted with another new development corporation, in Hartlepool, and, despite opposition from Middlesbrough Council, a new development corporation in Middlesbrough. So can we take it that the Secretary of State has confidence in the ability of the Tees Valley Mayor to set up and work with mayoral development corporations?

Simon Clarke: On that point—

Hon. Members:: No.

Ashley Dalton: I will give way. Go on—I am intrigued.

Simon Clarke: I am grateful to the hon . Lady for giving way because it has been reported this afternoon that the Middlesbrough Labour party is pulling the rug from under the Middlesbrough Development Corporation,  which was established just a few weeks ago. Can she explain why that is the case and why it is forgoing the £18 million of Government support that that would bring, as well as the private sector support it would unlock? That seems to be a profoundly retrograde step for my town.

Ashley Dalton: It seems that quite a few of us believe that we should be looking far more into a wide range of these development corporations.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Is she aware that the position of Middlesbrough Council was to say, “Give us the money, don’t give it to yet another self-appointed board under the tutelage of Ben Houchen”? Is she as amazed as I am that Ben Houchen has deliberately excluded PD Ports, the biggest employer and investor in the territory, from the consultation process? Does she not find that ridiculous?

Nigel Evans: Just before the hon. Lady responds, let me remind her that there is one more speaker to get in before 6.40 pm.

Ashley Dalton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he has added enlightens us all and adds a lot to this debate.
As I have said, the current Tees Valley Mayor is apparently trusted deeply by the Secretary of State to work with mayoral development corporations, so why does the Secretary of State reject the Mayor’s request for a National Audit Office inquiry in favour of a panel, handpicked by the Secretary of State, with a remit, scope and authority hurriedly thrashed out fewer than 10 minutes before this debate began and which, by the sound of it, is not approaching adequate?
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and cannot speak highly enough of the National Audit Office. Perhaps the NAO has indicated that it could not, or should not undertake an inquiry into Teesworks. But not so: the NAO has said that it is able and willing to undertake such an inquiry. We can assume then that the NAO sees no problem with it being tasked to do so, from the perspective of its remit, its expertise or its capacity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ashley Dalton: I will not give way as I am nearly done.
When it comes to the spending of public money and the transfer of public assets into private ownership, it is not just the decisions made that cause concern among communities; it is also when those decisions appear to be made in the dark behind closed doors and without transparency. That is when people start to feel suspicious.
Therefore, to help me, others on the Labour Benches and the people of Teesside understand the Secretary of State’s decision to reject the request of the Tees Valley Mayor, to decline the offer of the NAO and to set up a new panel from scratch, I invite the Secretary of State, assuming he is listening, to share his thinking, take the lid off decision making in Teesside and show the taxpayers of this country the respect and courtesy of an independent transparent inquiry that they can trust.

Nigel Evans: I call Matt Western and ask him to resume his seat at 6.40 pm.

Matt Western: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) was incorrect when he said that all the members involved in that decision were Labour councillors; they were not. That is categorically incorrect. I just want to put that on the record.
As someone who worked in procurement, I say, if it smells of fish, it is fish. This reeks of fish. The negotiations, the poor governance and the poor value for taxpayers’ money are a disgrace. Although this is a really important issue for the people of Teesside, the unfolding scandal has brought implications for the Prime Minister, for his freeport scheme and for this Government. What we are seeing is the first test of his freeport strategy and it is failing. It is thanks to the sharp investigative journalism of the Daily Mirror, which in January 2022 broke the story about the issues surrounding the project, that, ultimately, we are having this debate today.
The financial mountain that is being amassed by a few of the Mayor’s friends is colossal—friends who are also donors to the Conservative party. Fortunately, Private Eye, the Financial Times and my hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate have made absolutely clear the scale, the detail and just how widespread this emerging scandal is. It is a long story full of twists and turns, but at the centre of it all we have the Conservative Mayor, Ben Houchen, with the help of two counterparts, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney, and a few others.
It is a dark web of friends and family, property developers, PR companies and scrap metal merchants—the scrap metal story is perhaps the most egregious demonstration of how perverse this situation is. Half of the proceeds are now going to Messrs Musgrave and Corney and their companies. The day-to-day operation of this is led by Orion Kotrri, an Albanian man who, as we have heard, is married to Corney’s daughter. I could go into all the other relationships, but they have been well covered by my colleagues.
There are more questions than answers. Seven people have spoken to the Financial Times to raise concerns about accountability and governance. We all want to see investment across our regions, and Teesworks is the Prime Minister’s flagship freeport, but there seem to be parallels here with the personal protective equipment scandal, given the network of donors involved in the project. This is not a scheme—this is a scam.

Alex Norris: It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition in this debate.
Let me start by bringing us back to first principles. The Mayor of Teesside himself has requested a National Audit Office investigation into the Teesworks joint venture. That is backed by the Chairs of three parliamentary Select Committees. The Opposition, as hon. Members have heard, support it. The media support it. The only people who disagree with this are Ministers on the Treasury Bench and their Back Benchers. The purpose of the motion and the debate is to establish why the Government have taken the eccentric course of rejecting an NAO-led review. Is there a sound public policy reason or is it a partisan decision?
My colleagues have made very strong cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) set out in significant detail the pain the north-east has felt over 30 years of austerity; I would have thought that Conservative Members would have reflected on that, but they did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reflected on the region’s potential, which makes that pain doubly saddening. My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) raised a range of very serious questions that simply must be addressed by a review that everybody can have confidence in.
I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about journalism and the courage of those various journalists who have taken this issue on. Despite all the criticism they have had from the players involved, they have stood up, done their job and shone a light on the issue, and we are having this debate today in part because of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) set out an extraordinary, deep and detailed case, worth listening to by those colleagues who have sought to shout him down, both today and previously. He has shown incredible courage, knowing what is right for his constituents and doing what is right for his community when it would have been easier for him not to. There will have been days when he got out of bed, knowing the barrage that he was going to face, and it would have been easier not to, but he has too much courage to do that, and I salute that.
I turn to colleagues on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said it was inconvenient that we were bringing this motion today. I understand that, but I gently say that it is for the Opposition to ask the questions and for the Government to answer them—they cannot ask the questions as well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) hit the nail on the head when she said that the Mayor has asked for this audit. It is not so unreasonable that we should ask for such an intervention when the Mayor himself has done so.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) asked, as did the Minister in his opening speech: why are we departing from established practice? This is the first time such a thing has happened. We have never had such an incident involving an elected Mayor or a mayoral development corporation. Of course whatever we do will be a new and novel approach, because we have never done it before. Falling back on false equivalence simply does not work.
I turn now to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who made a bombshell contribution to this debate when he made it clear that he was basing his decision today on the discussions he has had with civil servants and the advice they were able to give him as a Back Bencher—advice that he knows we have not had any access to. At the root of the motion is the point that we need to know the information that is clearly available to some but not to others.

Simon Clarke: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that Ministers have not been advised by the civil service that  the threshold has been met. That is a matter of public record. It is in the letter the Secretary of State sent to Ben Houchen at the end of last month and it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box during his opening remarks. Ministers have been advised by the civil service that no such threshold for a best-value investigation has been met. That is not our view; it is the civil service’s view.

Alex Norris: I chirped during the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier contribution to ask him how he knew. I took from that—if I am wrong, the record will show otherwise—that he had had those conversations. Frankly, I think that that muddle is at the root of the issue.
Of course, this issue cannot be decoupled from the Government’s supposed commitment to levelling up the country—a commitment on which, as has become increasingly clear over the past 18 months, the Government cannot and will not deliver. We have seen a levelling-up White Paper which talks more about a Medici-style renaissance that a real commitment to our communities; a bodged levelling-up fund that locked deprived areas out from getting the money that they need; and much-heralded levelling-up directors quietly canned even though they were supposed to champion the revitalisation of our nations and regions. What a waste. What a waste of the pent-up potential of our regions, towns and cities which is waiting to be unleashed if only the Government were serious about delivering on their promise. Once again from this Department, it is all press releases, no delivery.
Teesside was supposed to be the flagship, the proof of concept, which makes the concerns expressed today all the more crucial. If this is what levelling up is, who benefits from it? Who is it for? The questions keep mounting up, as colleagues have said. Reports in the media outline how millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have supported a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake despite seemingly never having entered a competitive process, and how those developers have taken significant dividends, outsizing their investment in the project. People rightly wonder how that has happened, who sanctioned it, whether value for money has been delivered, whether these concerns are legitimate, and if so, why has it taken dogged reporting on the issue, and colleagues in this place, for them to come to light?
Those are crucial questions that require answers, but rather than call in the National Audit Office, as the Mayor himself asked for, the Secretary of State has chosen to set up his own review, set the terms of that review and appoint the panel himself. We are now in the ridiculous situation where a flagship Government project that is facing serious allegations of failures in accountability is subject to a review set up and appointed by the Government themselves, and we are told that that will give the public the reassurance that they need. How can the Secretary of State expect the public to have confidence in that process? It is no wonder he did not come today and stand up for it, and instead sent the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), whom I hold in high regard, into an impossible situation.
Let us face it: the Government are on their way to court for a statutory review that they themselves set up, because they are doing anything they can to avoid being candid in it. Now, they ask us to trust them and put our  confidence in a review that has not even those safeguards and powers, and they are surprised when we, the media and the public say that that is simply not good enough. We have waited for the answer today; it has not been forthcoming.
It is critical to public trust that the Government are transparent about the decision making that led to this process being adopted. The motion before us seeks to do just that by calling on the Government to release correspondence and communications pertaining to the decision not to order an independent NAO-led investigation and instead to commission their own review. For the sake of public confidence that all decisions have been made in good faith, and with the express intent to get the answers that the people of Teesside deserve, the Government should be open about how they reached their decision. That is all the more important because this does not relate to Teesside alone; it is the first project of its kind, with far-reaching implications for Mayors, combined authorities and development corporations. We need to know the truth now so that we can learn the lessons later.
The Government have had the chance today to establish a credible public policy reason why the Mayor’s own self-referral to the NAO, supported by everyone but the Government, was rejected. We did not hear any such reason from the Minister; we heard false equivalence about processes pertaining to different public bodies. Unless the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) takes this opportunity to change course, we must use Parliament to compel the release of the information behind the decision. We must vote for the motion.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is absolutely right that this place offers right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to raise concerns about value for money or process, particularly when it comes to public money, so I am grateful for the contributions from both sides of the House, and in particular from so many fellow northern Members. Indeed, as a Back Bencher, I have on a number of occasions used the privilege that this House offers to raise concerns about other alleged wrongdoings, but I think it important that we consider our language, our tone and the content and context of the claims that are made. I think that it is wrong to exonerate someone without due process, as it is to condemn somebody without due process.
In the case of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, it remains the case that the Government have seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality. Neither have the auditors of the STDC, nor have my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) or the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). However, the seriousness of the allegations, some of which have been made in the House and discussed today, could damage public trust, so it is right that they are investigated.
It is important to recognise that the review that we have commissioned was called for not only by Members of this House but by the Tees Valley Mayor himself. Our elected Mayors play an important part in championing their areas—convening communities, local leaders, businesses and investors to support levelling up in those  places. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) highlighted, industry on Teesside was in decline prior to Mayor Houchen taking office. The project has the potential to deliver more than 40,000 jobs and billions of pounds of economic growth.
The Mayor has understandably raised concerns about the allegations made, recognising the damaging effects they could have on investments and job creation across the Tees Valley. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). The continued allegation of corruption poses a real risk to our shared ambitions to deliver jobs and economic growth in Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) rightly stated that those concerns and allegations—unfounded at this point in time—deter investment in the region, a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). As he said in his final words, we have had enough of talking down the region.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said that people did not need to rely on his comments about the allegations being raised, citing newspapers that had raised them. But he must be aware that the Financial Times makes no allegations of wrongdoing, but merely quotes his comments made in this House. That is similar to the points made by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). They raised facts, but they made no direct allegations as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough did. Those allegations are an ongoing concern, shared by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and me. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced the independent review, which will address the accusations directly and robustly.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) confirmed earlier in the debate, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also now published full details on the review, including the independent panel that will lead the review and the terms of reference. I can assure hon. Members that, in line with existing practice, the Government have appointed a panel composed of external, independent experts with extensive experience at senior levels.
As the lead reviewer, Angie Ridgewell brings extensive experience of senior leadership in local government. She is the current chief executive at Lancashire County Council, having previously held senior roles across the public sector, including as director-general of two Departments. Richard Paver and Quentin Baker have been appointed to ensure the panel are fully equipped to consider the complex legal, financial and commercial matters the review is likely to cover. Richard Paver acts as the finance lead for an existing non-statutory intervention at Wirral Council. Quentin Baker is currently director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council and has 17 years of experience acting as statutory monitoring officer for several large local authorities.
The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about the extent of the review and I understand that, given the time that she had to study the announcement. But she  was not right to say that the review relates only to general governance, because it clearly specifically refers to allegations that have been raised, and the inquiry needs to respond on those issues, including commercial arrangements.
Members have raised the question of the prospective role of the National Audit Office. The Government considered carefully calls for an investigation to be led by the NAO. It is not, however, the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local government bodies, and its powers would not normally be used for that purpose. It would not be appropriate to expand so significantly the role of the NAO by asking it to lead this inquiry. In confirming the review, the Government have been clear that we would welcome any action by the NAO to update its review of Government funding arrangements. These are all points that were raised by the hon. Members for Sunderland Central, for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), as well as by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who described that position as eccentric despite the fact that it is the established process—a process that Labour actually established.
It is important in this debate that we do not lose sight of the value of devolution in empowering our local communities. Mayoral development corporations are but one tool at the disposal of our elected Mayors to support renewal and regeneration where it is much needed—in places such as Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where the challenges of post-industrial deprivation are significant but the opportunities are equally so. Local and regional government working together with the private sector is an opportunity to provide the leadership and strategic direction needed to enable growth.
Equally, this Government have been clear about the importance of accountability and scrutiny for areas with devolved powers. The English devolution accountability framework, published this March by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, sets out the ways in which we expect mayoral combined authorities to make themselves accountable to both the public and Government. The forthcoming scrutiny protocol will set out how we expect such bodies to create a sustained culture of scrutiny.
Once again, I thank Members for their important contributions today. We should be focused on ensuring the best outcomes for the Tees valley, so this is an important debate to have. Only a few years ago, the Teesworks site was a burden to the taxpayer and a danger to the public, with a significant price tag merely to maintain its safety and security. We should not lose sight of the fact that investments in that site—public and private—are helping meet our net zero targets, while providing economic opportunity and a sense of prosperity for future generations.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 272.
Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Animals

That the draft Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 18 April, be approved.—(Robert Largan)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 14 June (Standing Order No. 41A).

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Great Yarmouth

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Brandon Lewis: First, I direct the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do so specifically, not least because I feel passionately about small and medium-sized enterprises. I worked in them and ran them before I came to Parliament, and now I am again working with family businesses. A constituency such as Great Yarmouth is absolutely reliant on those SMEs—in fact, it is not so well known that our whole economy is. I will explain that in a moment.
My father ran a business, and I have always had a strong relationship with Great Yarmouth because his business—an SME that employed people—had a factory there. Because of how SMEs integrate into the community, even today, some 30 or 40 years since my father left that business, people who worked for him are still running a part of that business in Great Yarmouth. They are employing people who will go on eventually to run that business, and maybe they will set up their own businesses to form part of the Great Yarmouth business community.
Some 37,000 people in my constituency—roughly half of my voting constituency—work in SMEs. There are some 3,000 SMEs in Great Yarmouth. That sounds like a lot, but it is no surprise because across the country something like 99% of businesses qualify as SMEs. More than 50% of our working population work for SMEs. That is a huge number, and that is important, because these businesses drive our economy.
I have a strong interest in the housing industry. I was the Housing Minister, and I remember working with great house builders and household names, and some of the great multinational companies that we see started as sole traders and grew to be the big names that we know today. In sectors across our economy, there are big-name brands and companies employing people globally who started as family businesses. Some of them still are family businesses.
We need today’s S’s to become the M’s of tomorrow and then to become the big companies that grow our economy. We get very focused on the big names, and they play a hugely important part, but for constituencies such as Great Yarmouth—particularly coastal communities where the tourism and hospitality industry plays such a key role—SMEs are at their heart.
SMEs play a part for the big companies as well. The oil and gas and renewable energy industry has a huge presence in Great Yarmouth, particularly in servicing. Companies such as Seajacks, which work around the world, are from and based in Great Yarmouth. They are there because an entrepreneur from the oil and gas industry had an idea, took the risk and developed it in Great Yarmouth. Now, he is employing people from across Great Yarmouth. When clients come to companies like Seajacks and others in the energy industry, they often take their clients, visitors and customers for lunch in places like the Imperial Hotel in Great Yarmouth, and restaurants like the Waterside, or Planet Spice in Ormesby. Those businesses are integral to big and medium-sized businesses. It is a symbiotic relationship. Our economies work because of all of those layers.
Small businesses are generally family-owned businesses. If not, they are at the very least locally owned or locally run. That means they have a very keen interest in the community, which they show by sponsoring local sports teams or cub scouts, or just by being involved in the community and knowing their staff who are a part of the community. The businesses are an important part of it. We have spoken in this Chamber a lot, and in my roles in government I have spoken a lot, about the pub industry and why pubs are so important to our communities. They are SMEs and a hugely important part of the community. Like many other businesses, if they have a regular customer who has not been in the pub that day, they may be the first in the community to realise there is a problem.
An SME owner or manager will generally know all their staff. In my business, before I came into Parliament, I knew all our staff by name. That does not happen in a conglomerate, but it happens in small and medium-sized businesses because their owners and managers are a part of that business and community. They also respect the local community in a different way—not to say that big companies do not respect their communities—because they are so reliant on it for their customers and their staff. They are much more integral to the local community, and much more focused on how they can work for it and support it. That matters, because that is what binds our communities together. It also ensures we can deliver social mobility. People can move and work in businesses in different sectors across the country, knowing that wherever they need to move to and wherever they want to work, there is a community they can be a part of; not just a housing estate or a business but a community, and the business will be a key part of that.
SMEs, particularly in hospitality which is so vital to constituencies like Great Yarmouth, have had a really tough time. As we came through the covid pandemic, they arguably had some of the toughest situations to deal with. In many ways, it was one of the fastest industries to recover, because we all wanted to get out and about and do things while we had the opportunity to do so, but those businesses still need help. VAT has been an issue for them since it has come back up, particularly compared to some of our competitors around the world. They also have to deal with business rates. SMEs find business rates to be a challenge, as they have to deal with high street values and prices, while competing with conglomerates that have out-of-town business rate values and prices. Any business we talk to will say there is a need for us, at some stage, to ensure that we are cognisant of the challenge of business rates, seasonal worker schemes across hospitality—and agriculture in a constituency like mine—and the wider basis of regulation and tax.
We all want things to be safe and regulated, but we have to remember that big companies can deal with that more easily. They can put teams together to manage it. It will be a cost to them, but they can manage it. SMEs often do not have the resource to do that. They need flexibility to be able to work with their workforce. They often have very small margins and need to be focused on their customers, rather than on what is sometimes seen to be unnecessary regulation and red tape, so we all have a duty to focus on that.
The Minister will be absolutely cognisant of that. From conversations we have had over the years, before either of us were in government, I know how successful  he was in the business sector and I know how well connected he is with the SMEs in his constituency, so I know we will be singing from the same hymn sheet. He has a reputation across the sector as someone who understands the sector and wants to deliver for it—something we all want to do. I just want to take this opportunity to be very clear about its value and importance, and to put on the record what we all know, which is why these businesses matter so much to our communities.

Robin Millar: My right hon. Friend is making a really interesting speech. There are many different points I would like to pick up on, not least the similarity with my own constituency, which is also a coastal community that is highly dependent on tourism for its economy. He made a very interesting point about pubs being close to the people and often being the first to detect when things are wrong—when people are missing. Does he agree that pubs and all hospitality businesses are very often the first to indicate when there are problems? Just today, I was with a group of colleagues talking about the impact of energy pricing on the pubs and hotels in their constituencies. The phrase, “They are the canary in the coalmine,” was used. Does he agree that that is the case, and that energy pricing is proving to be a real problem for them at the moment?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is spot-on. That challenge has been fed into me recently by a number of businesses: they have asked what more the Government can do to ensure there is collaboration between the Government and industry to deal with energy pricing. The rise in energy prices is one of the big challenges coming out of the problems of covid and particularly the abhorrent invasion of Ukraine by Putin. The Government have rightly put protection in place for households, and I congratulate them on that, but many businesses are still struggling with rate rises of up to 400%. They are often businesses working on small, single-figure margins—often of 1% or 2%.
The pub industry is tough: it is hard work making sure the client and customer is happy and has a good experience. We need to make sure that we have the support in place to not lose more pubs. We all know we are losing pubs and that lifestyles are changing. It is not necessarily the Government’s responsibility to fix all those issues, but we do need to be cognisant of what more we can do to work with the energy industry to ensure that we have the biggest possible impact for businesses, as some of their rising costs through inflation go back to the challenges from rising energy prices.
My hon. Friend is right, too, that the hospitality industry is one of the first to see any warning light for our economy, as, indeed, is the housing sector. If we want more houses to be built across our country, we need SME house building businesses to be building. I know some of the chief executives of our big house builders. One of them, who sadly has passed away now, always said to me when I had responsibility for the sector in government that one of the challenges today is that the regulation and the restrictions on housing make it very difficult for people to do what he and some of his competitors did in the past—those big house builders that started as sole traders—which was to borrow money and get through the planning process in order to build even one or two homes.
If we were able to invigorate SMEs in the housing sector to build those small numbers of homes in our villages and towns across the country—wherever we need them; in the right places and of the right quality—that would make a huge difference to our economy, because it has a knock-on effect. It is not just about the house, which itself improves social mobility; it is about everybody who is employed in building the house, and about the person who moves into it going to buy some paint or whatever else to decorate it. That all adds to the economic boost and growth for our country, and it is why we benefit by about 1% of GDP for every 100,000 homes built in this country.
Our hospitality industry is a canary in the mine showing what condition the economy is in, as my hon. Friend said. Those businesses I was talking about earlier—the larger and the medium-sized businesses—entertain clients and customers, and hospitality notices first if there are fewer of them, if those businesses are taking less time to entertain because they have fewer customers and visitors, and if we as individuals are spending less money in hospitality.
It plays an important part in the economy. People think of hospitality in places like Great Yarmouth as being just there for visitors, but it is there for business as well. In Northern Ireland, I spoke regularly to businesses who would use the hospitality pull of Northern Ireland as part of the sales pitch for their business in the engineering sector. It is a very important sector for our economy, and it thrives and relies on those SMEs.
The majority of that sector is SMEs. Big companies like Haven Holidays have a huge presence in constituencies like mine, but it is the small businesses that knit things together and support people across the villages and the coastal towns. I have seen that at first hand in Hemsby in Great Yarmouth, where almost all the businesses are independent or family-owned. They have come together to protect the coastline and literally defend the homes of people, and they have helped people who have lost their homes when they have fallen into the sea because of the coastal erosion we have had over the last few years. There have been some very dramatic circumstances. The businesses with a sense of passion for their community —the publicans and business owners in Hembsy—have come together to drive the campaign to make sure we get the support for the residents who need it, as much as for the businesses themselves and the visitors who come to enjoy the beach that we want to protect.
I have seen time and again the importance of SMEs across the whole of the UK economy, as I have outlined. Many people—the majority in our country—are employed in SMEs. I know the Minister is cognisant of this, but in everything we do we should always be thinking about what more we can do to help today’s sole trader become a small business, and today’s small business become a medium-sized enterprise, with a view to how they grow into the big plc of the future; because without doubt for me in Great Yarmouth, our small and medium-sized, predominantly family-owned, businesses are the heartbeat of the constituency, and they end up being the heartbeat of our country.

Nigel Evans: Before calling the Minister, I must say that it is rare and impressive to hear a content-packed speech delivered without notes, so congratulations.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am sorry that I cannot emulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) by speaking without notes, but I will do my best to ad lib a little. I thank him for securing this important debate. I love his words that SMEs drive the whole economy. It brought back the words of Winston Churchill about the private sector; he said that some people see private enterprise as a predatory tiger that needs to be shot. Some people see it as a cow that needs to be milked. Few people see it for what it really is: the strong horse that pulls the whole cart. That is exactly right. Everything we see in the public sector and in this House is paid for by the private sector, the taxes it raises and the jobs it creates.
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on the title and the primary content of this debate—SMEs are the most important part of the sector. As he said, I started a very small business and grew it over time, but the pressure we were always under as our business grew was from smaller businesses starting up and putting pressure on our market share. I listened carefully to his points about his father’s business and the legacy effect it has had on Great Yarmouth. That is my experience. Many people go into business for the potential financial reward, but also for the legacy: the jobs they can create and the business that they leave behind. That has a long-lasting effect on towns such as Great Yarmouth.
The Department for Business and Trade is seeking to make the UK the best place to do business in the world. We want to make it easier to do business every single day. My ministerial colleagues and I, as well as many others including my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, are for business because we are from business. We understand how this works.
My right hon. Friend made the point about smaller businesses that start up and grow to become larger businesses. That is the fundamental basis of our strategy to scale up Britain. We want the start-ups to become scale-ups. That is one of our areas for development. We are No. 1 in the OECD for start-ups per capita, but in a survey of 14 OECD nations, we were 13th for scale-ups—businesses that have 10 employees or more after three years. That is our focus, and there are three key focus areas underneath that: access to finance, support and advice, and removing barriers and red tape. Those are critical issues for the SMEs I speak to.
When we speak about business, it is important to speak about the entire world of businesses in all sectors. Hospitality is very important in Great Yarmouth, where 23% of all jobs are in the tourism industry. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) rightly said that the hospitality business feels that cold wind first, but also sees the benefit of the improvement in the economy first, too. It is truly the canary in the coalmine, as he put it.
In Great Yarmouth there are some fantastic opportunities for the future, not least in green energy. My right hon. Friend pointed out the businesses that are benefiting from that. I am aware of ASCO, which employs more than 100 people, providing services to the North sea opportunity that is green energy—30 wind turbines on the Scroby sandbank. There are many more opportunities in that sector.
In the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone in his constituency, South Denes energy park and Beacon Park are boosting innovation and growth in the region. More recently, investment through the Great Yarmouth town deal and the future high street funds, building on previous support from the local growth fund, is helping the local area by supporting jobs and growth in that region.
I will go into some specifics about the three areas of focus I referred to earlier. First, access to finance is one of the primary concerns for small businesses as they open their doors and grow. We work closely with the British Business Bank to improve access to finance. I am pleased that as of March 2022, the British Business Bank programme has supported over 96,000 small and medium-sized businesses nationally with over £12.2 billion of finance. The programme is designed to bring benefits to start-up businesses, businesses with high-growth potential looking to scale up and businesses looking to stay ahead in the market.
I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has supported many initiatives in his time in this place, such as the important start-up loan scheme, which has delivered around £1 billion of finance to 100,000 companies. Those unsecured loans are vital to many people who cannot access finance to start a business. In his constituency, 95 loans have been provided, to a value of almost £800,000.
Inclusion is a priority of this Government, so I am pleased that in terms of all the start-up loans issued up until April 2023, 40% went to women, 20% went to people from a black, Asian or minority background and 32% went to people who were previously unemployed. Those are all disproportionately high numbers, which we should welcome.
Within the space of access to finance, we are also undertaking the payment and cash flow review. We know that is an issue for SMEs and we want to make it easier for them to be paid, as that is another source of finance. We have improved our equity finance offering through schemes such as the regional angels programme, supported by the British Business Bank, and the enterprise investment scheme, the remit of which has been extended.
We are looking at potential new opportunities on the back of open banking. Open banking was a huge success in this country and has been emulated around the world. There are now 7 billion API calls every month for open banking, connecting one banking app with another, and there are other fintech solutions. Open finance provides the opportunity to completely liberate opportunities for SMEs to access finance. Rather than going to their own bank and asking for a loan, they can ask many different providers for that finance, which will increase choice and opportunity.

Robin Millar: The Minister is following the speech given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) with another very interesting and helpful speech about what SMEs need. He is describing the Government’s role in creating an environment in which SMEs can flourish. Will he comment on the importance of the regulation to which he referred, not just to say that there should be as little of it as possible but to set out what regulation is effective? Will he comment on whether it is right for the Government to intervene when the market is failing?

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I will come to shortly. He is right to say that we should intervene only where there is an exceptional circumstance, such as covid or a cost of living crisis, or where there is market failure, which is where we want to focus. For example, with SMEs working in the hospitality and house building industries, which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth both referred to, we know there is market failure and a need for them to access finance. We need to focus on those areas and ensure those sectors are provided with finance, when they cannot get it elsewhere.
The Government provide extensive business support, which is another key focus area, including through the business support helpline, the Help To Grow management scheme and a network of 38 growth hubs across the UK. The Help To Grow management scheme was launched in June 2021, to help close the productivity gap and lay the foundations for growth by providing SMEs with key skills in financial management, marketing and innovation. Our evaluation showed that approximately 90% of SME leaders surveyed reported that the scheme helped and Help To Grow management contributed to improved leadership and management of their business. I encourage my right hon. Friend, and all Members of the House, to share information about the scheme with local SMEs that could benefit from the opportunities it offers.
We know that businesses have emerged from the covid-19 pandemic, only to be faced with rising costs and dampened demand. In the autumn statement, we announced £13.6 billion of support for businesses over the next five years, including through reducing the burden of business rates for SMEs by freezing the business rates multiplier for yet another year, to protect businesses from rising inflation.
Over the winter, the Government intervened in the energy crisis by providing unprecedented support, in the form of the energy bill relief scheme and, more recently, the energy ill discount scheme.
The Government are freezing fuel duty, maintaining the 5p cut for a further year, and reversing the national insurance rise, which will save small businesses an average of approximately £4,200. That is in addition to the support previously announced in the form of an increase in the employment allowance to £5,000, the introduction of a zero rate of VAT on energy-saving materials, and the exemption of small businesses and microbusinesses from regulations where possible. That was raised by my right hon. Friend in his speech. These interventions show that the Government are on the side of small businesses, and understand the unprecedented difficulties that many have faced.
The last key focus is on removing barriers and cutting red tape. We are doing that through many mechanisms, such as improving the processes for public procurement, trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The working time directive recording requirements will potentially save businesses more than £1 billion a year. Landmark legislation in the form of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will make it easier for SMEs to access digital marketplaces.
The Government acknowledge that one of the significant barriers faced by SMEs across the country is late payments. We are determined to see those reduced to ensure that SMEs are given the best chance of succeeding and growing. That is why we are conducting a review of business-to-business payment policy, the prompt payment and cash flow review, which is scrutinising existing payment practices and measures. We need a stronger culture of responsibility in large businesses to support the smaller suppliers on which they rely. The Small Business Commissioner addresses small businesses’ complaints about payments and the payment practices reporting duty creates transparency by requiring large companies to report on their payment times, while the prompt payment code sets standards and best practice in payment culture.
We are making substantial investments in Great Yarmouth to help the area to thrive and succeed. The borough secured a £20.1 million towns deal in 2021 to help level up the town. One of the fantastic projects supported by this intervention is the operations and maintenance campus for the energy sector. The town has also secured £13.8 million of future high street funding to help revive the town centre as a vibrant economic, cultural and community hub. That will help the town centre to develop sustainably into the future, supporting footfall, further regeneration and investment.
Great Yarmouth bid successfully in the second round of the levelling-up fund, and the Great Yarmouth riverside gateway project received £20 million to regenerate the railway station and the North Quay area of the town. We recently agreed a landmark devolution deal with Norfolk County Council, which will bring a wide range of benefits to residents and businesses in Great Yarmouth. It includes a £600 million investment for a further 30 years, equating to £20 million per annum, and Norfolk County Council can borrow against that further funding. The Norfolk broadband programme was awarded £5 million through the local growth fund to extend superfast broadband in the county, and it is estimated that that will lead to a £2 billion growth in the local economy and the creation of 1,500 jobs within 15 years.
The Government recognise that this is a challenging time for all businesses and we have provided unprecedented levels of support to help businesses and workers through these difficult times. However, data for Great Yarmouth show a 4% positive difference between the birth and death rates of businesses in Great Yarmouth in 2021, an encouraging sign that businesses are flourishing in the local area and that the local Member of Parliament is being highly effective. Furthermore, 667 Great Yarmouth businesses have been supported by their local growth hub and other partners, and there are 3,585 SMEs in Great Yarmouth in total. Over the last six months, there has been a sharp rise in job postings—vacancies, in other words—in Great Yarmouth, from 1,004 job postings in November 2022 to 2,229 in May 2023. That is a 122% rise. These are the highest vacancy volumes since October 2012 and they illustrate the health of the Great Yarmouth economy and the excellent work and representation by its local Member of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.